The Peopling of Corona

We always think of America as the great melting pot. The place where cultures from all over the world become one. But is this actually true? Have we really all melted into one inseparable amalgamation of a nation?

It definitely didn’t start out as this. Gerstle explains how immigrants used to come to America as an opportunity to make money. They brought their skills from their homeland and used the industrial revolution to their advantage, making money for their families back home. Back home being the key word. They never thought of America as a home, it was just a place to pass through to make money. America became the “land of seperated men.” Immigrants wanted to remain separate. They even made schools in their own languages so their children wouldn’t be influenced by the Americans.

It was only once people started coming to America with the intention of staying that the idea of “americanization” came about. People were naturalized, voted, and started identifying themselves as Americans. But still, there was the concept of the hyphenated American. America still could not be considered a “motherland.” However, the World Wars fueled the idea of patriotism and being proud of your country. Cultures began to find a middle ground betweeen their ancestry and America, inserting their traditions into the normal, American life. Slowly, people began assimilating.

Despite society being more accepting of social diversity, people are assimilating now faster than ever. By the third generation, almost no kids will speak the mother language. Intermarriage is happening in much higher rates. People are proud to be simply “American.”

But perhaps this isn’t what we should be striving for. Perhaps part of the beauty of America was the fierce passion people had for their ethnic backgrounds. Is there really one “American culture” we’ll have once all other cultures disappear?

Questions:

-What does American culture mean?

-How do the other groups you identify with affect your perception of America?

-Will America ever be completely assimilated?

The writing by Walzer truly got me thinking… What makes us American? Is it the football we watch, the guns we (don’t) own, the apple pie most of us enjoy? Walzer quotes Philip Gleason who claims, “A person did not have to be of any particular national, linguistic, religious, or ethnic background. All he had to do was to commit himself to the political ideology centered on the abstract ideals of liberty, equality, and republicanism”. Now those ideals are abstract indeed, so abstract that perhaps America was doomed to be the home of intense ideological strife…. The Whitehouse today is certainly evidence of this. Gerstle’s essay expands on the ideas of Walzer, saying that the push for nationalism in America is not as righteous as it seems, and many immigrants are quite reluctant to abandon their  “old-country’s” culture. Not only that, but race, ethnicity, and gender play an immense role in how integrated and successful individuals can become in American society- a society that is not simply a “melting pot”. With unshakeable ethnicities, Americans are citizens of a country unlike any other; how can we have any sort of unity when we don’t even know what it is that unites us? How can a country divided continue to exist? Walzer didn’t address this facet of pluralism in his essay, so what do my fellow students think?

On the other hand, Americans all relish the idea that their religions and ethnicities can be celebrated and have the ability to coexist. Perhaps the quality that all Americans share is the fierce dedication to preserve the right to hold whatever beliefs and practices they wish. Each group will fight to protect their interests and safeguard their beliefs; the only issue may be the interests of one group conflict with another. Will there be any cohesive multi-ethnic and multi-religious movement for toleration nation wide? I think not, especially with the amount of bigotry that exists today. Steinberg offers yet another insight: although assimilation isn’t complete, it is happening all across the nation. How many of us are much more “American” than our grandparents? Perhaps that is the idea behind assimilations. Fresh immigrants will definitely partake in the pluralism that is common amongst Americans, but their descendants are very likely to join the ranks of the Americanized, albeit with colorful backgrounds. I certainly feel very American, despite being a dedicated part of a much smaller ethnic group of Jewish Americans. Do any other students in the class feel the same way?

I think Natasha is right in saying that we cannot judge a city as “good” or “bad” based on mere economic value. Each city is distinct in its own subculture, its own unique flavors, so to compare New York City with Chicago in terms of which is “better” would be comparing apples to oranges. A city may appear to be a slum, but can you put a price tag on strong communal bonds or the packed churches so many of these neighborhoods boast?

When I read the line in Jane Jacobs’ The Death and Life of Great American Cities, “…planners, including highwaymen with fabulous sums of money and enormous powers at their disposal, are at a loss to make automobiles and cities compatible with one another,” the immediate image that popped into my head was the morning traffic on the Van Wyck so many of us experience daily as we commute to our beautiful campus. Commuting is a basic component of life in New York City. We all do it, we all need to get from point A to B. So why is it that the streets of NYC always seem to be congested and traffic is frequently at a standstill? Is poor urban planning to blame?

I have to disagree with Jackie’s last point about how people might have been simply following public opinion when it came to the Five Points without ever giving it a chance. While there may be some redeeming qualities to the Five Points, which Anbinder himself alludes to in his concluding paragraphs, the Five Points was not a pleasant place to live. I doubt that writers had the desire to fuel public misconceptions when the truth was far more interesting. The fact is, there were three intense riots in the area and fights, prostitution, and excessive drinking at all times. The Five Point’s history is a great example of that of a slum as described by Mumford. It didn’t need exaggeration.

I think in regards to reading Jane Jacobs’ The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jackie was right to remind us that it we are now living 20 years after it was written. Because of this, it is hard to criticize her lack of evidence in certain areas, as Jackie has. Some things are common knowledge at certain times and need no explanation. Just because Morningside Heights is now a hangout for college students, doesn’t mean it always was. As pointed out by Jackie herself, things change. It is very likely this is another example of that.

After reading The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs, Five Points by Tyler Adbinder, and The City in History by Lewis Mumford, I’ve come to understand that the creation, growth, and potential destruction of a city is attributed to a complex network of factors. As Jacobs’ alludes to, cities do not breathe life into its people, but rather it is the people that breathe life into their city. The initial urban planning of a city may be carefully calculated and constructed, but what determines its success or demise is the cooperation of its people from all demographics.

However, as history has proved many times, there is no such thing as the ideal cooperation of all citizens. As humans, we are programmed for self interest and self preservation. Cynical as it may be, money is motivation, power is motivation. And what is one’s success without another’s failure? As Mumford says, “wealth has no limits.” As the United States moves closer to a pure capitalist economy, all interests lie with making profit. And drawing a conclusion from that, why should anyone be surprised when big business CEOs, politicians, and big name investors turn a blind eye to the slums of their cities such as Five Points? Isn’t it to be expected, at this point, that they only care about the big paycheck at the end of the day? As long as the impoverished of their cities are proving to be a big expense and hurting revenue and the subsequent flourish of the city, it is of no concern to them. Of course, it is naive to believe that money itself is the solution to all of a city’s woes. But, a solution to the widening gap between the rich and poor cannot be attained with money as a major resource. Blindly throwing money at a problem will do no good, but information and investment can lead to a solution for the slums. However, along with smart investment must be compassion and initiative to take responsibility, something that elitists seem to lack when all they care about is maximizing profits. If we lived in an ideal world where those with monetary power actually addressed their philanthropic responsibilities, slums like Five Points would not exist!

I agree with Jackie when she states that our city has changed drastically within the past twenty years. Jane Jacobs’ The Death and Life of Great American Cities was published about two decades ago, which may be why I disagree with a few of her viewpoints. She starts off her passage by claiming that there are many slums because of poor city planning. While this may be true, I find her statements a bit biased. Jacobs has a very negative outlook on the way our city functions, criticizing places such as the civic centers and the North End. She claims that such “low-income projects” turn the neighborhoods into places “worse than the slums they were supposed to replace”. Like Jackie mentioned, Jacobs failed to mention the “projects” that were successful, such as the transformation of Times Square. Within a few decades, Times Square had changed from an X-rated entertainment central to a family friendly, world renowned tourist attraction. It has made New York one of the most coveted cities to visit or live in. As Liz mentioned in her blog, Jacobs is against “orthodox city planning”. This is one argument I agree with. I believe that each city is largely affected by the people living in it. It is the citizens that shape the city, not so much the city planning or designing.

I had always taken public transportation for granted. After reading Mumford’s passage in “The City in History”, I learned a lot about the origins and importance of public transportation. Not only does it make it convenient for residents to go about their daily routines, but it also causes our city to prosper and grow. Without public transportation, there wouldn’t be as many jobs and companies. Our economy and society would have been extremely limited.

I posit the repulsive, debased zoo of Five Points, along with the deplorable, barely inhabitable tenement housing situations (which characterized many urban dwellings in the United States) were healthy and a requirement for urban development.  Galvanized by a mass influx of poorer immigrants from Europe seeking a outlet, along with limited space and the universal self interest to make money, the situation we encounter during this time period was inevitable.   Nevertheless, the conglomerate of different cultures and ideas undermined by a shroud of depravity is truly the essence of what defines the city of New York.

Yet, although Jane Jacobs’ insightful suggestions have their place, there is no specific formula for what makes urban areas successful.  Plans which turn awry with one neighborhood and people, could very well work a few blocks over.  Furthermore, learning from trial and error is paramount.  The city of Chicago, in many ways similar to New York, redefined and revamped its infrastructure after the Great Chicago Fire in the 19^th century, and the differences between these cities, can now even be seen on street level.  Of course, different commercial atmospheres and environments play a large role in complicating the the direction of urban growth, but these urban problems and difficulties only lead to positive innovation and change.

As some of my classmates have pointed out, writers as Jacobs who rejected the modernist ideas of urban planning which destroyed the community aspect of neighborhoods, would probably be against the gentrification seen in many present day NYC areas.  However, even though gentrification benefits a young, urban group of professionals while devastating the previous inhabitants, this double-egged sword serves to further keep the city changing and interesting.  Essentially, cities now and back then need the Five Points’, tenements, gentrifications and fires to learn from and redefine themselves into something greater.

Jane Jacobs starts up her essay very strongly, stating that it is an attack, which I thought was an interesting way to attract readers.  She does bring up a valid point later saying, we wish for more money to fix our problems, but why do we not take greater care to prevent them from even arising? Why is this short-sidedness always in our way? It seems to be an issue in a lot of things, not only urban-planning. As I read along I found that there were a lot of criticisms in the passage, but not an offered alternative or a new idea. Frankly, I got a little bored.

Jacobs says slums are a result of poor city planning, like that of  the neighborhood Five Points.  It was in fact poorly planned, as the beginning of chapter one briefs over, but I do not think that it was the planning that was the reason. The 1800’s were a very turbulent time in terms of social acceptance. The abolition movement was taking a toll on people and the momentum that erupted into the Civil War was beginning. Also, people were not all that accepting of immigrants, a trend that has occurred throughout United States history. To answer Liz’s question, it is very likely that it was the prejudice that kept immigrants on a lower social status which in turn affected their economic status, which is reflected in their neighborhood. Also, a point that I thought was a little outrageous, having people come tour how awful a place is does not fix anything; it would more likely ignite more conflict.

Like many people who have commented, I definitely found Jacobs’ The Death and Life of Great American Cities thought-provoking. Although most, if not all, of her points were debatable (as Jackie and others have already demonstrated in their posts), I think the point I’m most ambivalent about was the one regarding gentrification. Certainly, gentrification, as most evidence suggests, basically begins on its own accord, but without some kind of harness – a benignly imposed governing system if you will – there is no telling where, or how far, the process will spread. It’s just not a systemic black and white procedure. There are casualties – sometimes in  large numbers. That being said, there are positive aspects to it as well, not least of which include giving much needed neighborhoods an all-around facelift of sorts, since gentrification, like it or not, increases revenue for the businesses located in the affected neighborhood, provides better resources for the residents, and turns the area into a much more accommodating and agreeable place. (There is a sad reality to the flip side of this – why must thorough and real reform largely occur only in neighborhoods with a certain “caliber” of residents?)

As far the unforeseeable evolution of cities goes, there is clearly a type of synergy between a city and its citizens that lends itself to unpredictability. Like Jacobs implies, it works like an equation: if you assume that a city (and everything about it) is largely the result of its inhabitants, and said inhabitants are all inherently unpredictable and diverse, then it stands to reason that a city, in all its nuanced characteristics, mirrors its constituent personages in precisely that way. As Liz and Jackie both mentioned, there can be no such thing as an overarching urban blueprint fitted for every metropolis. That would be misunderstanding the city at its core. As far as citizens are concerned, city planning can only be effective and beneficial when it considers just a few specific localities. Otherwise, it becomes a highly impersonal force, blindly brandishing its powerful and potentially destructive hand, leaving many cities at the risk of ruin or, as Jacobs wryly put it, “sacking.”

I’ve noticed that many people have addressed the Times Square “reformation” as a kind of rebuttal to Jacobs’ assertion that “low-income projects…become worse centers…than the slums they [a]re supposed to replace.” While I do agree that the “Disney-fication” of Times Square is an extremely positive thing, there are surprisingly some people who aren’t quite as enthusiastic about it. My sociology professor mentioned just the other day that he can think of countless people he’s come across who have said that the seediness of Times Square contributed to the overall “flavor” of the city. According to them, the authentic vibe of the city was markedly compromised. Of course, that argument appeals more to subjective nostalgia than to objective reason, but nonetheless, I thought it was an interesting thing to note.

The three readings shed much light on urban planning. I never knew the addition of highways and department stores had such an effect on the way we live today to the type of demographics in different areas. It even explained why slums are where they are today and the reason for the disappearance of market squares.

In response to many people’s comments, I thought, that there was no major exaggeration in regards to the Five Points reading. The lives of people who lived there were drastically worse then those in other areas. It is true that African Americans and immigrants of that time were treated terribly. Real estate agents convinced white people to move out of integrated areas by saying African Americans in the area would lower the value of their property. As the white people moved out of these areas they took their businesses with them decreasing the flow of money and the economy in these heavily populated African American neighborhoods. Hence, there is no falsity in saying these areas where actually worse off.

All of these effects of urbanization could not have happened without the past. And that is why I agree with Jackie on how fascinating it is that capitalism has it’s roots set back as far as 1500s or even from the ends of feudalism. Whether the condition of the Five Points was exaggerated or not its destiny was set in motion way before its existence.