The Peopling of Corona

In the various neighborhoods throughout New York City’s history, shifts in the populations of residents in areas, underscored in places as Corona or Five Points, were routinely incited by ignorance, racism, and a fear of the decline in value of personal assets.  Upon realizing a potential influx of blacks would devastate the social sanctity and economic worth of neighborhoods, “white flight” became a reoccurring theme as white Americans flocked to suburbs.  Apparently, as highlighted in Gregory’s depiction of Lefrak City, often residents would be able to discern a difference and shift between black residents of a “high class” or “friendly” disposition, compared to those with less than appealing hair styles or outer-wear.  Unfortunately, these newer residents were not looked upon in the same light, but rather perceived as “horrible”, while fear neighborhoods would become a “welfare haven” spread (113).

What is ironic about the nature of movements as “white flight,” or fears that newer populations would deteriorate neighborhoods, is the relative truth to which these fears actually unfold.  Once a certain foundational population flees, fewer funds are then delegated, and these areas are ultimately paid less attention to by respective governing bodies.   Neighborhoods eventually DO begin to decline, this fulfilling the stereotyped prophesies.  How disturbing.

I knew I recognized Riis! Anbinder introduces his chapter on changes in Five Points by telling the story of Jacob Riis, a journalist and author of How the Other Half Lives, whom I recognize from history class in high school.

But, getting to the point, Anbinder goes on to explain the ways that the Five Points neighborhood changed drastically in terms of institutions and population. It seems that the New York of the 19th century is moving just as fast as the New York of today, something we can witness ourselves in our own neighborhoods. He also writes of the laws introduced and the attempts made to increase the quality of the tenements.  They still needed to be cheap and affordable, but they were changed in order to make life bearable. These attempts were absolutely feeble, for they did next to nothing. What I found most interesting in this selection is that the slum actually shifted. Instead of it being Five Points, it moved just a little ways north to “Mulberry Bend.” But, if the entire country has identified the issue, and  attempts have been made to fix it one area, why were the same issues started up somewhere else? Why can’t reform target the problem at its source, taking it out once and for all. These (almost pointless) laws didn’t do much and problems just spread.

This week’s readings repeated our class discussions about institutionalized racism. I find it quite disturbing that attempts to improve living conditions in the slums were systematically aborted by the government’s open racism. This seems a bit strange to me, since I would think a government would support the improvement of its cities’ neighborhoods–even if it doesn’t particularly like the type of people who are living in them. Generally, having entire neighborhoods that are run-down, crime ridden, and filled with people who are suffering from poverty and not stimulating the economy by spending is not considered a desirable thing for a modern city to have. The racism of the government officials seems not only bigoted and unjust, but also self-defeating and a hinderance to the attempt to form healthy modern cities.

I believe the majority of this week’s readings concerned race and how it affected certain neighborhoods. A lot of the information, I feel, was repetitive and discussed numerous times in class. However what I did find interesting was the parallels between the video clip we watched and what happened in Lefrak. There were some differences one was which racial group was being discriminated. The other and more significant difference is the slant taken by the Black Corona.  Gregory focused on Edna, a black woman who tried to stop the discrimination, instead of the white oppressor.

Edna made a real attempt to clean up Lefrak and make it a better neighborhood to live in, similar to the attempt to clean up the Five Points. However because of the interference and the racism of the government, like with white flight and the police pestering the youth in Lefrak, it was hard to make any permanent change.  This is part of what confuses me the most. America didn’t necessarily have to segregate it self into slums and filthy rich areas, or black and white. If the government and people together made an effort many of the areas that we consider bad today could have been substantially better. America would also have made more progress in regards to equality.

Anyone able to shade some light on why America would blind itself by purposeless hatred causing its people and itself harm?!

I found it interesting that legislation was passed to improve tenement housing. Windows were required in each room,  outhouses and/or toilets had to be connected to sewer lines, the amount of people allowed to live in an apartment was limited, and other living improvements began taking place.These rules were set in order to make places like Five Points more bearable to live. However, despite these improvements, tenements remained dangerous, smelly, and all together unpleasant places to live.

Because of the Civil War, wages rose and people took the opportunity to leave their neighborhoods for a better life. However, because of the cheap nature of the tenements, people of course moved in and life resumed as usual, just with a new group of immigrants.

Our readings had to do with living standards as well as institutionalized racism. I know there’s no sparker, but I was wondering if anyone else had some thoughts about the long standing connection between the two in addition to what was in our readings and what we’ve mentioned in class.

I found the discussion of race in the Foner reading to be very interesting. The selection begins with an analysis of South Eastern Europeans and Jews and their struggle to become classified as “white.” I was always puzzled by this, as it seems to be common knowledge. Secondly, Foner discusses West Indians and their struggle to be distinguished from Native Africans. I find the latter to be extremely interesting, as it is something that I discussed in my sociology class last semester. We considered the U.S. Census, and the vagueness of the options available. For example, if one is “black” that does not consider the multitude of countries that they could originate from, either in the Carribean, Africa or even Trinidad. I was baffled by the harassment Foner mentioned in Howard Beach where Michael Griffith, a Trinidadian boy was struck by a car of white youth who chased him down after riots in Brooklyn.  My class also discussed the social construction of race itself in contrast to ethnicity. What is the purpose of having both? What differentiates one from the other? If it’s solely physical characteristics, such as classifying those with a distinct nose as Jewish, how are we to accurately depict one’s race?

The biggest issue I have with ethnicity race in the US is that Hispanic/Spanish is not listed as a race. It shocks me that those of Latin ethnicity are forced to chose between White, Black, Asian, and Native American as race. Which brings my back to questioning the establishment of race in this country. It has been solely a force of division in the nation’s history, and is always changing, which again, makes you question its accuracy. According to my sociology course, those of Latin/Hispanic origin are expected to identify as “white” on the census. Why then are they viewed/treated so differently than others who identify under the same category? Hispanics are mercilessly under the scrutiny of many whites (consider those individuals from the Farmingville documentary we watched), and yet are classified under the same category as their tormentors. There is something extremely flawed with the radicalization in our country, and Foner’s reading only assured my thoughts on the matter.

The reading by Anbinder describes how politicians and the City of New York attempted to clean up the slums of Five Points; although minor improvements did manifest themselves in the area, Five Points soon resumes its place as the most notorious slum in the city, albeit after a short hiatus. The reading also explores how during the American Civil War, the labor shortage allowed for the improvement of wages for many laborers in the area. They in turn moved to better areas. Sanjek explains that “white flight” was the culprit behind population shifts in Corona. This is a theme we discussed in class: as soon as a group living in a poor area has the means to move out, it usually does. The impact that these sorts of moves have had on American demographics is quite apparent: the growth of suburbia. While many whites did leave Corona, during the 20th century Corona remained a racially integrated and diverse neighborhood. ”The mere presence of whites in significant numbers assured better public services, such as public schools, building code enforcement, and garbage collection, as well as access to mortgages and other banking and commercial services” (Gregory 57). This favoritism by the government had a huge role shaping the neighborhoods in New York. Although segregation, slavery, and institutionalized racism seem to be a thing of the past in New York, they all played a substantial role in how the city was shaped. Indeed Foner goes into quite vivid detail in chapter 5 about how shifting ideas about race and ethnicity affected the integration of immigrants into New York’s society. Although it often seems trite, the role of race cannot be overlooked in regards to immigration and the way New York’s structure came to be.

There are two websites that will be useful to you if you are planning on using census data or other NYC related data.  Both of these sites can be accessed for free without having to set up an account as long as you are on campus and using the QC network.

The first is Social Explorer (www.socialexplorer.com).  Social Explorer has US census data going back to 1790 and includes all of the 2010 census data that has been released so far.  You can search by zip code to produce maps and reports drawn from this data.

The second is Infoshare (www.infoshare.org).  Infoshare was developed by a Queens College Professor and gives you access to New York City data from a range of sources, including data on public health, crime, housing, businesses and land use.

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?

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?