The Peopling of Corona

Sanjek discusses–in great depth–three past mayors of New York City: Ed Koch, David Dinkins, and Rudy Giuliani. Throughout all three of their careers each one increased, or at least sustained, the number of budget cuts employed. Though this can be an effective process, these mayors cut funding to the wrong public institutions and government jobs, and this, unfortunately, is not what New York City needed. As a matter of fact, this is almost the opposite of what New York City needed, as it increased the number of unemployed people. It appears that, when the economy is doing well the government hires a lot of people, and then fires them when the economy starts to dip. However, the government should instead let people work for private businesses (which could require laying them off) when the economy is flourishing, and then hire those people who are laid off during hard times. There are a multitude of job opportunities that the government can supply, from the Health Department, to Law Enforcement, to Public Recreation. Hiring people to fill these positions when the economy is good forces the government to spend money on their worker’s salaries. If they save this money, though, they can then hire workers during an economic depression and thus create jobs.

All of the funding and budget cuts discussed by Sanjek reminds me of how my dad, who worked for the Westchester County Health Department, was basically forced into an early retirement about a year ago (they gave him a retirement incentive and told him he would be fired in the next couple of years if he didn’t retire now). The reason for this being that the newly elected Mayor, Rob Astorino, decided to privatize business and cut government jobs. Thankfully, my dad received a decent retirement package and so was not hurt too badly. However, my sister’s position at the county lab she worked in was cut (meaning no pension or any type of package was given to her), and soon after the entire lab was closed. Because of this, people now have to go a private company that charges twice as much to be tested for STD’s (the same service that the county lab did for free). The best part, is that this private company sent their test samples to the county lab that my sister worked in, before it was closed, to be processed. So, how is privatizing this helping anybody? In my community, people constantly complain that they can’t afford the taxes in Westchester, and yet they have a 70 inch flat screen HDTV sitting in their living room, with a 360 and a PS3 hooked up to it. They see “cutting government jobs and thus reducing taxes” as a good thing because it allows them to keep their expensive products, however, they do not seem to realize the long terms effects of this, much like Koch, Dinkins and Giuliani.

“…but they never got us the money for it” (93) This quote essentially summarizes a good portion of chapter four in Black Corona. Focusing on the renewal time period—when the government decided to try to “fix” or “cure” poor neighborhoods—Gregory highlights a cycle of development that is common among most cities and countries.
The Italians that originally inhabited Corona moved out and were replaced by African-Americans. Unfortunately for these people, affording a proper house to rear their young children, along with the price of living in this community, proved to be too expensive. Rather than immediately addressing the problem, the government first sent in teams to survey the community and see where the “blight” started, and conclude if it really was as bad as the community stated.

The results of the initial surveys were that the area was a suburb that had major improvements over the slums that previously housed minorities. However, the area was quite volatile, which could lead to disastrous results. As these studies continued, it became evident that many of them could not separate racial bias from economics, nor could they remove the political agendas of the government from their analysis.
Eventually, the government decided that it needed to act to prevent the crime that was supposedly prevalent on the “Northern Boulevard Strip”. Their intentions were also political, though, concerned with stopping crime in the area to make themselves look good, rather than actually giving people what they needed.

Finally, in 1969, the Langston Hughes Library and Culture center was created. As the committees and meetings set up to help alleviate poverty prevalent in Corona by building public institutions such as the Langston Hughes Library became more effective, they also grew separate from the people. Attendance to these committees soon decreased due their complex and specific topics, as well as their frequency. They eventually became tools that Mayor Koch would use for his own political agenda.

It’s ironic how, as the process of communicating the needs of the community to the government became less democratic, it simultaneously became more effective. Of course, the effectiveness was only to Mayor Koch’s liking, and so many would argue that is not effective at all. But, if he tries to gain the vote of the poor by building them new community centers or recreational facilities, is he not helping them out in the end? Regardless of his intentions, this corrupt system does seem to work to some degree. That degree, though, was reached when Mayor Koch gained enough power that he could ignore the community’s needs and requests, instead focusing his attention on the more advanced corporate-Manhattan sector.
America seems to be built on a fine balance between a democracy and a republic, and that balance shifts over time (hence the two main political parties differing ideologies). So far, America has been able to (arguably) maintain this balance in a manner that allows it to function. However, is it inevitable that, like Corona, America will fall prey to the wanton desires of a political party rather than the rational, coherent, beliefs of the American people? I mean, that America will fall prey to the private agendas of a deranged political party that is estranged from the common American citizen’s desires? Frankly, I have no answer, but I found it very intriguing that a microcosm–present inside of the macrocosm–can provide insight into the larger issue.

Finally, there is a second idea that I would like to bring attention to: “…civil rights-era gains ‘divided the black community–it destroyed our unity'” (104). I honestly don’t quite understand the explanation for this statement. I think that Gregory states that by prying into the private affairs of the African-American community, the state and federal government destroyed some of their culture. In addition to this, the “political issues concerning racial and class inequality were subordinated to the “riot prevention” strategies and tactics of governing elites and power-evasive discourses of urban blight on which they relied” (105). If anybody else can elaborate on this point, I would really appreciate it. Though the initial statement seems very interesting and bold, the explanation was muddy and not nearly as audacious.

This week’s readings (their occasional moments of nigh-lethal tediousness aside) contained a bombardment of information that I am still finding difficult to categorize and process. Nonetheless, since I have the privilege of being one of the sparkers this week, I am going to have to do my best.  All that I ask is that you bear with me, because this could get messy.

New York City during the last two decades of the 20th century must have been a pretty turbulent place. Sanjek’s account seemed to apply that there was virtually no favorable stability – particularly in aspects of governmental policy – during that era. Beginning with Ed Koch’s utter failure to consistently focus his attention on anywhere other than Manhattan, Sanjek provides a seventy-page exposé of sorts about three of New York City’s mayors – Koch, Dinkins, and Giuliani – in their failure to truly improve New Yorkers’ “quality of life.”

The Koch administration’s acceptance of “planned shrinkage” – “the deliberate withdrawal of public resources from the city’s poorest districts” – was reflected in Koch’s overall unresponsive stance towards Elmhurst-Corona (141). Instead of focusing on school and subway overcrowding, increasing crime rates, and housing code violations (among many other dysfunctions present in the community), Koch instead focused on budget cuts that only served to further cripple the community, curbing “sanitation, police, educational and health services” (169). In fact, “at the beginning of the 1989 election year, 72 percent of New Yorkers agreed that ‘city life [had] worsened under Koch” (170).

Nor was Dinkins any better. During his brief mayoral stint, budget cutting only intensified, dramatically increasing the number of unemployed citizens and, in turn, decreasing New Yorkers’ overall quality of life. Privatization also reared its head under Dinkins’ administration when 10 percent of Flushing Meadows-Corona Park was leased to the United States Tennis Association, leaving only 450 acres of usable space for local residents.

Surprisingly (at least, I found it surprising), the city didn’t fare any better subsequent to Giuliani’s election. Devastating (and quite frankly, at this point, downright hard-edged) budget cuts – instead of increased policies to repair the shocking realities noted in Chapter Nine – continued to remain the reform method of choice. This time, they affected both educational facilities and hospitals. “Tuition at CUNY was raised one-third,” writes Sanjek (sound familiar?), and Giuliani sought to privatize three of New York’s public hospitals, including Elmhurst Hospital Center. (The latter was thankfully met with much opposition, thus curbing Giuliani’s plans.) What’s more, Giuliani’s policies all represented a perpetuation of the senseless “planned shrinkage” ideology started by Koch.

Gregory’s Black Corona (admittedly a far less engaging read than Sanjek’s The Future of Us All) presents a similarly confused government, one that did more harm than good for the residents of Corona. According to Gregory, the multiple surveys and reports of the 1960s that were administered and released about Corona-East Elmhurst as a result of the state’s newfound interest in its renewal “reconfirm[ed] popular and professionalized discourses about poverty that located its roots in the race-specific behaviors and cultural disposition of the poor” rather than rightfully putting the blame on “the deliberate policies and practices of the public sector and private capital” (91). Many of the processes that went into effect during the 1960s in Corona curtailed the political significance of racially specific trends of poverty. Moreover, the state’s response to activism that arose in Corona as a result of public discontent was to further “extend its reach into the infrastructure of black political life,” shedding light on a government that was abortively intrusive and duly ineffective in meeting its citizens’ needs.

Some questions:

1. I know this doesn’t really pertain to the main idea of the readings, but what did you think about Giuliani’s statement in support of the CUNY tuition increase: “[The students] might have to work a little harder and take out a loan. Learn a little civic responsibility” (179). Do you think that statement would “fly” today in 2012 when similar increases are being proposed?

2. Of the three mayors Sanjek presents, who do you think harmed the city the most? The least?

3. Highly speculative, but still – If you were mayor of NYC either during the 1960s or the 1980s-1990s, what is one thing you would have done to improve the “quality of life” for the people living in Corona?

“So great an amount of work for so little money”

As angry Americans protested Latino workers standing on street corners in the documentary we watched last week, the hate was apparent. At first, the impression I got was that a group of concerned Long Islanders were gathering to genuinely discuss the safety of their neighborhood. But 20 minutes later, the animosity and underlying racism had seeped through their “law-abiding” front and smeared their rallies to clear out the illegal immigrants from their neighborhood. Many of the claims the residents were making were founded on the belief that illegal immigrants steal jobs from hard-working American taxpayers. Well if that’s true, then I’ll admit it’s pretty hard to welcome strangers if you feel like they’ll rip your job out of your hands eventually. So do the protestors’ claims stand on solid ground? Sanjek examines the working conditions of immigrants in the 1960s and 1970s, a pattern apparent in America’s immigrant working class today.

As immigrants arrived in Queens in the 60s and 70s, the infrastructure of New York City’s economy experienced an overall shift. Following the 1969 recession, from 1970-76, “New York City lost 600,000 jobs, and employment fell to its lowest point since 1950.” As the cost of living shot higher and higher, immigration rose as well. Queens gained 177,000 residents, the majority being Latin Americans, counteracting the white flight many urban neighborhoods were experiencing. Immigrants flocked to Queens where abandoned stores and businesses created job opportunities with a growing clientele. Sanjek notes that “the majority of immigrant-owned businesses in Elmhurst-Corona were of the very types being abandoned by white Americans…” So immigrant-run businesses were not stealing profits or jobs from white Americans, simply because white Americans were the ones leaving these jobs and allowing the immigrants to take them. I don’t think stealing constitutes moving into empty storefronts and replacing abandoned white business. Do you?

But immigrants did not only run shops and open small businesses (if they were lucky). Immigration created a new class of workers, a class notorious for its low-wages, nonexistent benefits, and harsh working conditions. First of all, does creating jobs that white Americans did not previously work amount to stealing? Secondly, Sanjek clearly states that “employers who sought to hire Americans at these wage levels found few who would accept the working conditions or remain in the job beyond a few weeks.” Sanjek goes on to say that immigrants working these low-paying jobs actually increased American jobs and businesses because without these bottom workers, businesses would have closed down or moved offshore if employers were forced to pay Americans higher wages for the immigrant’s work. If by stealing jobs you mean creating new ones, then, yes, maybe you’ve got a point.

Examining the facts, it is clear that so often our own perceptions and stereotypes are what drive us to mobilize under the mask of “doing the right thing” or “working for the greater good.” The Long Island residents in the film believe that they are defending themselves and fighting for a just cause. But when the truth is printed in front of you, when you can Google immigration statistics and see if your prejudices have any basis, it is hard to justify their actions. So what do you think? Are Americans in favor of deportation merely blind to the facts? Is racism still so prevalent in this country that Americans still simply act out of thoughtless hate? Or is there another side of the argument?

Coming to America is a dream filled with an opportunities for a better life. Arriving from Europe, immigrants expected a new life that would allow them to live a life better than which they ran away from. Although the immigrants of Five Points may not have been dining out or even had a worry-free mindset, they were still always happy about being able to live in America.

Anbinder opens his discussion on the occupations of the people of Five Points by showing the statistics of the jobs that were held by New Yorkers and the people of Five Points. Although Anbinder seems to make a point of the disproportional job positions of New York men and the men of Five Points, to me, it doesn’t seem strange at all. Why should it be odd that New Yorkers, who speak English, are familiar with the people in the area (and visa versa), and did have access to education in the country they are working in shouldn’t be in the better paid jobs. Yes, the working conditions are bad for the immigrants, and in no way am I saying they were ok, but I don’t find it odd that there was a disproportionate amount of New York men in white collar jobs than the immigrants of Five Points.

It is interesting to see the power that a union of tailors had against their employers. In a time when worker’s rights were not necessarily the center of attention, the Journeymen Tailors’ Protective Union was able to strike resulting in an increase (yet minimal) wage increase. Even if not all the employers raised the wage, it still showed the growing power of a working force at a time that it seemed they were so expendable.

Although workers were vey much needed by their employers, they were at most times very e expendable. A menial labor worker could not risk missing one day, even because of illness, without fear of being replaced. People were so desperate for jobs that they had to travel far from home in search for jobs, while leaving only a little money for the family. Out of desperateness children had to resort in taking menial jobs in order to just make it by. None of the money made was extra. The women even had to put in a deposit to work, so the employer constantly had control of widows that needed money. Women would work as domestic servants, or seamstresses in order to get by. The only opportunity a woman would have to own a business is if her spouse has died.

Many families worked hard in order to send back to their family in Europe. It troubles me to think how they managed this task under such hard condition. It was hard enough to get by just supporting one’s own family, but to set a side money for family in Europe must have been detrimental to the welfare of the immediate family in America.

Although success was small, living in America was still better than life in Europe. Family in Europe would receive letters telling people that they should come to America. Even though the splendor of America seemed to have been exaggerated it still enticed people to immigrate to America. People in Europe received letters speaking of everyday feast like Christmas.

The impact of immigration in Five Points and Corona had different outcomes. Whereas in five points, the community seemed to have been all immigrants, there were no issues of a blending of cultures like that of in Corona. Sanjek talks about the influx of immigrants and the impact it had on the community. The great streaming of immigrants caused a demographic shift result in a smaller concentration of the white community. The change in demographics resulted in a mix of ethnicities in the school system. This new community resulted in a white flight, looking for a community they are more familiar with. The immigration that Sanjek talks about focuses more on a change in culture, while the immigration that Anbinder speaks of results of more of an impact on the working force than anything else. The different time periods resulted in a search for different rights and opportunities than what the immigrants respective country was offering at the point. In the 19th century work and money was the cause of immigration. While in the 20th century, basic human rights such as as  religious freedom seemed to have been a cause for much of the fleeing from one’s home country.

Some things to think about:

What do you think gave the Journeymen Tailors’ Protective Union so much power, when unions themselves were weak at this time?

How much of a difference do you see of the treatment of workers between now and then?

Have we changed a lot as a people since this time, or we have remained static with just a different group of people being suppressed while masking it with other facades?

You could connect this with this weeks reading of The Future of Us All.

This week’s focus, as made evident from the reading, is how they lived. They lived in tenements and the housing condition was a major factor discussed by all three authors. Foner stated that three fourths of Manhattan residents lived in tenements in 1900. An even larger percent of immigrants lived there. Over ninety percent of Jews and only a slightly smaller percentage of Italians were tenement dwellers.  The general living situation of a tenement house was bad enough but there were the worst of the worst, which were the rear tenements, where people had to enter through alleys and had no windows. These people lived in conditions unimaginable today, compared to our standard of living.  Something I was unaware of is that the immigrant neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Harlem had tenements as well. Though many new immigrants do live in truly horrid conditions, many have dispersed and no longer live in the classical neighborhood.

Anbinder discusses similar ideas. Though Foner pinpoints many of the disastrous conditions people had to deal with in tenements, Anbinder goes into more gruesome detail. There were no beds, no water, no sunlight and the areas were riddled with disease and pestilence. Racial discrimination was not put aside even though most immigrants suffered through these same hardships. Five Point’s segregation “was even more pronounced than ethnic clustering.” There were strong family attachments and remnants are still seen in New York today.

News reporters and reformers saw the atrocities taking place in Five Points. Blame was shifted and much was argued upon yet nothing substantial was done. Eventually the civic leaders took it upon themselves to improve the city’s image rather than the city itself.

Finally, Sanjek explains how areas like Corna became so populated. He then gives us more insight through the neighborhoods and politics of New York. In fact, the shift of neighborhoods is not natural but rather based on government policy. He also begins to elaborate, similar to the other two books, that race and segregation plays a huge role in who lives where in addition to income and immigration.

Food for thought:

Foner says that many of the new immigrants are revitalizing some of the neighborhoods in New York City; does this imply that that new immigrants are truly better off in regards to their living conditions?

Why would the government try to improve their image rather than Five Points itself?

Is there truth to what Sanjek is saying? Or, does it sound closer to a conspiracy theory.

Tenements, tenements, tenements. It is no doubt that I have read the word “tenement” at least a hundred times while reading Sanjek, Foner, and especially Anbinder. This week’s readings were focused on what type of living conditions the immigrants of the late 1800s and early to mid 1900s experienced: extremely small, extremely crowded, and extremely filthy tenements.

Anbinder describes the Five Points tenement buildings as unimaginable habitats in which dirt, murder and disease were all too common, especially on Baxter and Mulberry Street. Incoming immigrants of nearly every race settled in these run-down buildings due to the cheap rent and the proximity of the buildings to workplaces. Landlords of the tenement housing would divide up a building that was not so large to begin with, into countless rooms that would house one, two and even over three families at a time. These “apartments” were as small as 225 square feet, and contained rooms the size of closets as small as 5 X 6 square feet. The fact that these room were so small and their location in the middle of the building, meant that in many apartment rooms there were no windows or doors. The darkness of these “bedrooms” paralleled the pitch black hallways and stairwells in the building. The fact that the landlords utilized as much space, and every inch of that building as they could, proved for very steep stairways in which many residents fell down or obtained various injuries while bringing groceries, laundry or water to and from their second, third, fourth or fifth floor apartments. One might think that living on the first floor of these apartments might be more ideal, however when it came time for laundry the women had to deal with dirt and filth falling from above clothes lines. In these tenements there was no winning.

Also a problem was the lack of privacy these people had while living in these tenements. Because of the small rooms and the close proximity of the apartments, these immigrants were literally piled on top of one another all the time. I remember reading that one visitor to these tenements recalled a number of women sleeping in a “heap.” Even if the tenents did have more breathing room, they would only be breathing in the putrid air and odors of the outside cesspools, in which the smell of excretion is most unbearable, especially when it rains and the fluids run in to the buildings. Consistent with all the recounts of tenement life, was the odor amongst these poverty stricken immigrants and the filth and grime in which they had to live.

Foner states that “three-quarters of Mahattan’s residents in 1900 were tenement dwellers,” in which many lived in a rear tenement: a building erected behind another in that light and ventilation were especially horrible. Toilets were outside, there was no running water, and people bathed, if at all, in the kitchen. During the cold, there was no heat. During the hot, residents slept on roofs and fire escapes.

What was also common among all immigrants was the renting out of the little space they had to borders and lodgers in order to gain a little extra money to pay rent. However with more people comes less space, more dirt, and problems of jealousy and thievery. Manhattan, Harlem and Brooklyn all experienced these types of housing, which became the reality for most newcomers.

Many immigrants today also face substandard living conditions. “10,000 – 50,000 immigrants live in cubicles illegally carved out of the basements of private homes and apartment houses, with little light or ventilation and inadequate means of escape.” Although many immigrants still live like this, “most newcomers are bypassing the old ghetto neighborhoods.” This is due to the fact that most new immigrants arrive with a higher skill set than their historic counterparts therefore they begin in the middle of the labor market, more than one family member works therefore money is pooled and in some situations money is brought from abroad. Although descent housing and living spaces are available, European, Russian and Asian immigrants do not face the same living conditions as Blacks and Hispanics do, specifically Dominicans. Dominicans fare the worst in household ownership and household income. This is due to the better education and English skills, and higher rates of female employment amongst European and Asian immigrants.

Although we can never really grasp how these immigrants lived and just how horrible conditions were, I find it very amazing (not in the good sense) that people actually lived like this, in closets filled with dirt and other people.

Yes, here come the questions I think would be interesting to talk about…

1) Many journalist, photographers and organizations such as the Tenement House Committee examined and documented these conditions. Everyone knew how bad it was. With all this evidence and with all the disgusting things people discovered, did anybody do anything to stop it or reform these housings? Were these documentations purely for historical or entertainment reasons? The government knew how bad it was because of all these records, did they try to do anything to help these people besides the “new laws” for tenement housing which didn’t even require baths? Did they care or did many people have that capitalist mind set in which people should get themselves out of poverty?

2) Say during this time all these buildings were torn down, and new, roomy and clean buildings were erected in which the rent was the same. Would the crime and behavior of these people change? Or is the openly sexual and violent behavior of residents in Five Points tenements due to other factors beside their lack of livable housing?

When you think of immigrants coming to America, what image immediately pops into your head? For me, it is the stereotypical picture of the “tired, [the] poor, [the] huddled masses yearning to be free.” However, over the years, this has changed dramatically and is not a reality to many immigrants. Originally, it was the Russian Jews and Italians who first emigrated to the United States. Hispanics and Asians were the next to emerge into the scene. Nowadays, people emigrate from all over the world. There is less of a pattern, and more of a overall spread of diverse ethnic backgrounds in New York City.

While this is probably a benefit of the transformation of immigration waves in New York, there are other issues that have come forth. Illegal immigration is something that has become a big political problem in the United States, while it was not such a prominent occurrence in the past. Present day “limits on the number of available immigrant visas, combined with the continuing desire of many to move to the United States, have created a climate in which undocumented immigration flourishes” (17). Illegal immigration is an issue that needs to be dealt with, but at the same time, it is something that many people don’t understand the complexity of. Not everyone who is an illegal immigrant has “snuck over the borders” as one may typically imagine. In fact, in New York City, “most enter the United  States legally on temporary visas and become illegal immigrants… by failing to leave when their visas expire” (17). It is said that 9 out of 10 of New York States illegal immigrants has actually simply overstayed their visas. This leads me to question my original view of illegal immigrants who were underprivileged or uneducated. This actually leads me to question my image of immigrants in New York in general. What do they actually come to New York City for? Are they as poor and desperate as they were in the past? Is New York a city of escape or privilege?

Nancy Foner, author of From Ellis Island, states that today’s immigrants aren’t the same types of people that came many years ago, before the turn of the century. She argue that the reasons for coming have shifted, and that the people that do immigrate here “[come] to the city [and] enter through the more prosaic gates of John F. Kennedy International Airport” (1). The people that enter the United States nowadays are of a different nature. They are people who are for the most part, educated and skilled workers. They are not here as a last resort, to escape their homeland and oppression. They are here for as a “progressive network building” (19). They are here to do business.

Which leaves me to wonder what the people of Corona have come here for and what has changed over time. At the turn of the century, Italian, German Irish and other first and second- generation immigrants crowded the tenements of Corona. The there was a surge of native born whites to Corona. It is important to consider where most of Corona’s residents have come from and why they have moved to this city when we move ahead and research.

How has immigration in Corona changed over the years?

What are some reasons people would move to Corona?

How should authorities deal with illegal immigration? Is there any way for it to be prevented? Should it be prevented at all?

Why is it that people’s reasoning for coming to New York City has changed over the years?

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 20^th 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?

Can you imagine what the world would be like if slavery in America didn’t last nearly as long as it did? Think of how much quicker whites and blacks and races in between would have reached racial equality, and how much fewer racism there might be in the world, let alone America. While reading the three readings for this week, I was amazed at how much more fairly slaves were treated by the Dutch in the 17^th century. In my opinion, they would have been freed a lot quicker under British rule, though before anything of the sort could happen, the British undid the progress when they captured the New Netherland and New Amsterdam colonies in 1664.

I was first of all amazed at how many more rights slaves in the New Netherland and New Amsterdam colonies had compared to what I originally thought. Of course, all slaves had too few rights for their lives to be considered fair, but the rights they were given under the Dutch West India Company made me feel as if they were closer to being considered “real” humans than they ever would be. For instance, slaves in these two colonies were given the same trial rights as white people- they could sue their owners, and, as Harris records, victories in court were not uncommon. They could also work for wages and own any property that wasn’t real estate or other slaves. They were also, for a time, trained to be skilled workers. Their rights in the court and their rights to even petition for their own freedom supports the notion that early slaves in the New Netherland and New Amsterdam colonies were a lot smarter and a lot more savvy of politics, law, negotiation, and culture than they would later become under British rule.

Christianity, for many years, was also an available avenue in helping slaves get their freedom, or at least half-freedom (yet another privilege for slaves: half-freedom, while it still made half-free slaves work and pay tribute to the Dutch West India Company, allowed them to own land and have a family and apprentice or indenture their still-slave children). European settlers in New Amsterdam and New Netherland justified slavery as a means to convert “heathen” African slaves to Christianity. Harris notes that once the slaves were converted, they would have been freed, but at that point, they were too reliant on their labor and didn’t. Nonetheless, annually, from 1635 to 1655, one to three black children were baptized in the Dutch Reformed Church, and Dutch Reformed ministers performed marriages between enslaved and free backs. Without a doubt, slaves saw the benefits of pledging their allegiance to Christianity and used their “Christianity” as a weapon in petitioning for their freedom. Unfortunately, Europeans suspected other motives behind their religious “dedication”, and stopped converting slaves in 1655.

Things took a turn for the worse when the British took over the New Amsterdam and New Netherland colonies and renamed them “New York” in 1664, for British rule of slaves was about to get much more brutal. The slave population increased faster than the white population between 1698 and 1738, at the same time that both prices of and demand for slaves was increasing. They believed in enslaving blacks regardless of Christian status, and in 1706 decreed that converting slaves did not equal freedom. Procreation among slaves was nearly impossible, as many households only had one slave. Slaves freed after 1712 could not buy land, and curfews, public punishments, and executions of slaves also increased dramatically. Harris notes that slaves committed a lot more theft and, and a lot more slaves ran away under British rule than under Dutch rule. Slave rebellions in the North are elaborated on at length in the “Black and White Manhattan” reading.

We are left with two very different styles of rule over slaves: the brutal, strict rule of the British, and the comparatively lax rule of the Dutch. The readings for this week certainly exposed the Northern colonies as not as “great” for slaves as it is generalized to be, for the same amount of unfairness existed for Northern slaves as it did for Southern slaves. The difference between the two halves is merely the labor style and quantity of slaves.  Here are questions to consider:

1. Why do you think the British rule of slaves was so much more severe than the Dutch rule? What caused the Dutch’s comparative lenience?

2. Do you think that slavery would have ended sooner (in the North, at least) if the Dutch continued ruling the New York area and the British hadn’t taken over? How would the economy of America have been different?

It all started on April 17, 1524.  From the very beginning, when Captain Giovanni da Verrazano docked the Dauphine, we were already people filled with discriminatory tendencies and intolerance.  The irony of it all is that in All Nations Under Heaven by Frederick Binder and David Reimers, the area, which became known as New Netherland, was seen as “tolerant of religious refugees, ethnic and linguistic minorities, or political exiles.”  There were Protestant refugees, French-speaking Walloons and Dutch-speaking Flemings!  Their proof of this ethnic diversity is that in a tax assessment of Amsterdam in 1631, “of the 685 wealthiest individuals no less than 160 were Flemish or Walloon, 30 were German, and numerous Italian, English, and Scandinavian names.”  Admittedly, one must take into account that other ethnicities and cultures had not yet planted roots in the area, but seeing as this diversity was such a huge accomplishment, one could already predict the problems New York would have in the future.

When groups of people started to move to Manhattan, there was overwhelming ethnic diversity among the townspeople.  Upon journeying to New Amsterdam, a Jesuit missionary, Father Isaac Jogues, noted that there were about eighteen languages spoken among the approximate one thousand residents.  Even more, he said, that even though only Calvinism was publicly exercised, there were Catholics, English Puritans, Lutherans, and Anabaptists in the colony!  Worse, this did not impress him.  He saw this religious diversity and multi-lingual way of life as arrogant and ignorant.  As time passed, more groups experienced trouble in the colony such as Lutherans, Quakers, and Jews.  The intolerance among these groups debatably lasted a short amount of time—especially in comparison to the discrimination and intolerance towards African Americans.

In 1626, the first eleven African slaves were imported and owned by the Dutch West India Company.  The colonies were lacking in labor and desperately turned to slaves and indentured servants for help.  Interestingly enough, they preferred white slaves/servants, but upon finding them unavailable, they turned to Africans.  And sooner than later, as noted by Leslie Harris in chapter one of In the Shadow of Slavery, “African slaves became the most stable element of the New Netherland working class and population.”  The horrible treatment infamously given to Africans was largely, and sadly, due to economic reasons.  Christians also used their religion to justify the cause.  They thought that they had to enslave Africans in order to convert them.  But many did convert (whether they whole-heartedly did or not), and freedom was still not available to them.  In Black and White Manhattan, Thelma Wills Foote writes about the constant “threat of conspiracy” that many settlers felt from the slaves, and when the Slave Revolt of 1712 occurred, many laws were put in place to limit African Americans.  New York, as well as the rest of the country, took years to get rid of these disturbing laws.

It is mind-boggling to track the colonies’ and then New York’s journey through tolerance of ethnic and religious diversity.  It is safe to say that we have come a long way, but the truth is that our actions, as people, are inexplicable.  Here are some questions to consider:

How much did religion and economics play a role in the colonists’ reason for slavery and discrimination?

Why did slavery and discrimination continue even after many African Americans converted to Christianity (an apparent reason for slavery)?

Why did colonists fear slave insurrection so much?