Chapter 17-Immigration View in the 1990s

I realize we've touched upon this subject in the previous chapter pertaining to immigration in the 1980s, but the topic has resurfaced in chapter 17. What I’m referring to are the multitude of efforts put forth by the U.S. to curb illegal immigrations, specifically when it comes to the Mexican border. The book talks about the ridiculous expenditures put forth towards this effort during the nineties. But also how the expensive fences and other fancy high-tech strategies implemented at key high-traffic ‘target’ points have ultimately backfired; the access points simply moved, and it has not served as the deterrent once hoped for.  And then of course, like we have discussed before when we watched the documentary on Mexican immigration, more people are staying and not returning home seasonally out of fear that they won’t be able make it back. And the tightened conditions have also resulted in terrible deaths (e.g. dehydration).  Something needs to change when it comes to the dynamics of not only our immigration policy, but our view on what it means to be an American—the perception of immigrants. As we've learned, it seems like overall the U.S. has been on an incredibly long trend of anti-immigration sentiment. Yes, it is not always as blatant as it was in the past, but indeed it prevails.

For example, when I reviewed George W. Bush’s 2001 immigration proposal (in the appendix), it paints a picture that the U.S. welcomes legal immigrants to this country, “with open arms”. But, is that really true?  It would, obviously, be uncool and politically incorrect to not act or say that the country is “welcoming” of immigrants. But considering the circulating anti-immigrant sentiment, those “welcoming” statements don’t feel totally authentic, even when referring to those who come here legally. Immigrants can be perceived mistakenly as a threat. I thought it was interesting when Daniels mentions the ‘roller coaster’ of public opinion regarding immigration and mentions something about what would happen during a recession. Well, we’ve hit a recession in recent years, that’s for sure. It just made me think about how much the fear of recession, the plethora of job loss that’s occurred, the foreclosure of homes, etc. has potentially played a role or contributed to anti-immigrant sentiment. (e.g. with less overall opportunity, why should immigrants be viewed favorably?)

   The other thing I found interesting about the proposal was that when the notion of combating illegal immigration is stated, it is quickly followed up with the mentioning of criminals, drug traffickers, and the like. And this connection occurs in two different places. Perhaps I’m reading too much into it, but this seems so deliberate; it’s almost as if illegal immigrants and criminals are lumped together in the same category. Regardless, to me there definitely seems to be a strong emphasis on “protecting our borders” and ‘catching’/deporting illegal immigrants, when perhaps all of that energy to keep those out could have been utilized to re-conceptualize and revamp our immigration policy—in a positive way that supports immigration and where that is the primary focus—not keeping out the wrongly-perceived “bad guys” .   

Chapter 16-Immigration & Nativism in the 80s

Although we previously discussed the Immigration Reform Act of 1986 in class, I thought I’d add to a few things to that discussion. For starters, it’s interesting to note the apparent shift in thought on immigration (with a focus on illegal immigration) that surfaced during the 1980s. While anti-immigration mentalities can be tracked obviously way back before the 1980s, the strength of those notions seems to wax and wane with the times; coming in waves or spurts depending on what’s going on nationally. Yet, the whole we-need-to-protect-our-borders mentality seemed to reemerge in the eighties and has lasted persistently since then. Look at more recent occurrences in Arizona, for example. The fear that the United States will become “flooded” with people, with illegal immigrants especially, definitely lingers as do nativist attitudes. And the need for ‘verifying’ citizenship—again fears based on notions that immigrants steal jobs away from U.S. citizens along with opportunity.

Part of what greatly contributed to and reinforced the immigration fears was the resurgence of nativistic ideas. I grew up in the eighties, but since I was a kid, I don’t remember much about what was going with immigration at the time. But feelings of superiority were obviously present. The book talks about several of the nonprofit organizations that aimed at immigration reform. Under the guise of seemingly innocent good-intended ideas, it seems the true agenda of these groups was to reinforce nativist ideas while maximizing the perceived threat of immigration in this country.  So, their goals were the same as the nativists from the past (i.e. there is a desire to cling on to the hope of a white European nation), but conveyed in a more subdued manner. I find it disturbing that there were numerous groups, too; not just one. The fact that there were several main established groups like this really seems to show just how prevalent nativist ideas were. And continue to be.  

It’s important to note that much of this nativism was really targeted at the Hispanic population, whereas in the twenties, nativism was aimed more at specific religious groups—Jews and Catholics. It’s interesting how throughout this country’s history,  nativism (along with the topic of immigration) has taken varying twists and turns, phases where one group was deemed negatively at one time only later to have a different target group.  I find this both sad and embarrassing. It’s contradictory to what many believe are our principle foundations. We are supposed to be an inclusive type of nation, welcoming, while promoting freedom. But old notions persist, just with a different twist….

On a slightly different note, I was surprised to learn about the numbers of Irish immigrants who wanted to come to the country and/or to become citizens during the 1980s, but couldn’t due to the cutoff date for amnesty. Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were those who would have liked to have seen amnesty available to the Irish population, particularly since over the years, fewer white European immigrants migrate to the U.S. or even desire to. The book touches on how this actually has contributed to the anti-immigrant sentiment..

Thanksgiving

The way my family and I celebrate Thanksgiving, our traditions, have changed throughout the course of my life. Growing up my parents and I would head over to Pennsylvania to visit my father’s side of the family. There we’d engage in the typical “Thanksgiving” activities many people think of; we’d feast on turkey, stuffing, cranberry sauce, yams, green bean casserole, and pumpkin and pecan pie. One year we decorated the Christmas tree; Thanksgiving served as the defining day that helped kick start the Christmas season. Other foci of thanksgiving included being thankful for the blessings in one’s life and of course, the warm (hopefully) feelings of simply being together with family. Celebrating with my Pennsylvanian relatives was special because we didn’t get to see them all the time. Later my parents and I would have Thanksgiving at our house and different relatives would come over on the big day.  Although the location changed, the focus was the same—food, family, thankfulness and togetherness. Yet, for my family Christmas is a much bigger affair than is Thanksgiving and is thus, deemed more important by my family. Nowadays, I don’t see my family for Thanksgiving because of distance (I see them for Christmas however). So now I spend Thanksgiving differently every year and I spend it with other people’s families. And they usually have the same sorts of traditions my family has adhered to; the foci are the same as those described above.  It should be noted that the mentioning of pilgrims, Indians, or the like are never mentioned on the day. 

Chapter 14-"Model Minority"

Chapter 14 mentions Asian Americans as being referred to as the “model minority” in the United States.  This is based on figures that point to this segment of the population as being less likely to be unemployed, less likely to be incarcerated, while being more likely to obtain higher forms of education; to hold high-end jobs. While these figures are certainly positive, I have a problem with the term “model minority”. For one, I don’t believe such a concept should exist  because it provides a very narrow and judgmental definition about what an “ideal” group of people should be—viewed through a lens that doesn't take into account, it negates, the full scope of what various minority groups contribute to society (clearly their contributions aren't always about money, income, etc.). The term also seems to sort of indirectly assume or suggest that minorities have certain negative connotations; perhaps that they are often poor, unemployed, or “non-contributing” members of society. Thus, based on the figures described in the book, Asian Americans are deemed exceptional because they more closely emulate what is considered desirable.

Yet, the other problem I have with the “model minority” reference is that it doesn't account for the differences between and within various Asian American minority populations. Obviously, not all Asian Americans fall statistically into the “model minority”. The book mentions how, for example, there are still Chinese Americans who continue to struggle economically; some do not have high levels of education and many work in menial sorts of jobs. For these people, as it is with numerous other groups, finding a way out of this life can be extremely difficult; one has to continue to work in low-paying jobs to support oneself, but can never earn enough to put him/herself through college. A similar predicament could be said for the Vietnamese people. So, the “model minority” notion is inaccurate, misleading and offensive.

And I also find the term interesting, if not ironic, when considering the long history of discrimination aimed at the Asian American community. There was of course the Asian Exclusion Act and later the Japanese detention camps via World War II. Then because China was a part of the Allied powers, they were all of a sudden an “acceptable” group and the exclusion act was lifted—but then the discrimination tables turned, with a focus on the Japanese. And the Asian discrimination effort continued with other Asian groups. Take the Filipino people, for example. The anti-Chinese and anti-Japanese sentiments back lashed on them. The book talks about how they even endured violence and were considered barbaric because of the tribal history in the Philippines. Despite being American nationals, the Filipino people were denied citizenship rights for some time. So, when considering the huge amount of discrimination inflicted upon various Asian groups in the United States, it seems ironic that later these groups have become known as the “model minority”. Again, completely offensive…

Chapter 11-Japanese Camps

One part of chapter 11 that stood out to me pertained to the section on Asian Americans. The impact of World War II on Japanese Americans and their forced detention in concentration camps was most certainly huge—not to mention an unfathomable action and gross embarrassment in American history. These American-made-and implemented camps were the result of mass hysteria surrounding the presence of those of Japanese descent residing in the country; following, of course, the attack on Pearl Harbor. There are many aspects to this whole scenario that are worth acknowledging. For one, I was surprised to learn that the great majority of those sent to the camps were actually born in America—they were American citizens! It’s outrageous to think about how quickly, nonchalantly, and unabashedly these people were shipped off to concentration camps; no qualms whatsoever.  Clearly, the wartime climate combined with mass hysteria, propaganda, etc. was sufficient for such a terrible action to manifest. Secondly, the government helped “justify” their actions by claiming that it was in everyone’s best interest and safety. On the one hand, the idea was that Japanese Americans could not be trusted not to be potential spies, while on the other hand, the detention camps would help “protect” detainees. Interestingly, the only spies identified were Caucasians. (source:  http://www.historyonthenet.com/WW2/japan_internment_camps.htm)  

I investigated the topic a bit, independent of the book, and was surprised to also learn that of those sent to camps, a whopping half of them were children. Indeed the idea of sending anyone to camps is despicable, but the thought of sending so many little kids seems to only compound the terribleness factor. And it’s scary to think about how fast the decision came about and how quickly the evacuation of those taken to camps occurred; most had about 48 hours’ notice. They weren't allowed to bring much with them either. They had to surrender their lives as they knew them; their homes, jobs, life. Conditions at these camps were dreadful, too.  Health care was poor, and people lived in barracks with communal facilities. I find this incredibly demeaning and enraging.

The government’s abrupt and propaganda/hysteria fueled decision to implement the camps is unsettling, partially because it makes one wonder if a similar sort of shocking decision could happen again.; not necessarily in the form of detention camps, but in some other way. Why couldn't it? At that time America’s principles of supposed equality and due process of law and such were in place; at least they were supposed to be or were superficially. Yet, in the uncertain, frightful times of war, rationality and rules (laws) can be turned upside down in a minute’s notice. Could something like this (not necessarily the same exact scenario) happen again?

On a final note, I found it interesting how World War II changed the situation of the Chinese in America. Once so strictly forbidden to become citizens, they were finally permitted to become ‘real’ immigrants with the relinquishing of the Chinese Exclusion Act. When considering this as well as other immigrant groups, it’s interesting to note how, through much of what we've learned so far, the government has had a less-than-noble way of selecting (or not selecting) the ratio of specific immigrant groups in this country. 

Chapter 10--Nativism

After reading chapter 11, I was struck by the section that discussed women (p. 281) and aspects related to their voting rights as well as other aspects related to immigration. I, like many of us, was aware of the Nineteenth Amendment, which (finally) gave women the right to vote. This was particularly important as well because the act of voting was such a huge part of what constituted being a full-blown citizen; an actual human being with a mind, with opinions. It seems like the right to vote acknowledged a woman as being independent of her husband—in the past husbands voted on behalf their wives. So, this was undoubtedly a major progression towards human rights, not just “women’s rights”.

So, many of us know this. But how often do we hear about the rights of early immigrant women? The book mentions how immigrant women and their rights were just not a priority for Congress. This is not entirely surprising considering the prevalent anti-immigrant attitudes of the time (or at the very least, the need-to-minimize-immigration attitudes).  And, of course, throughout much of history women were viewed as being inferior when compared to their male counterparts. Thus, if immigrants in general struggled for rights and acknowledgement in the United States, as women in general did, women immigrants (being from two minority groups) indeed must have additional struggles. And they also had no real voice that would have been heard by a discriminating society and male Congress.

I also took note of the Expatriation Act, which penalized American women who married foreign men by relinquishing their citizenship. Two things come to mind here: 1) Why should such an act be implemented in the first place, with the emphasis on punishing or minimizing a woman’s right to choose a marital partner?  2) Why wasn’t there a similar law outlining the result of an American man who married a foreign woman?  Interestingly, foreign women who married citizen men automatically became citizens. That was deemed acceptable. Yes, eventually, women were allowed to marry foreign men without facing the automatic resignation of their citizenship (although the Cable Act had other hidden agendas pertaining to Asians). Yet, it says something that the act was implemented in the first place. Women weren’t readily looked upon as having the same rights as men at the time. As it was and continues to be for other subjugated groups in society, rights seem to come with fights. It’s amazing to me just how slow-moving equal rights were for many of America’s minority groups.

As a nation, we have been so shockingly slow to progress and even when progression seems apparent on the surface, a closer look often reveals otherwise. Negative attitudes persist for decades. And so many groups have been ostracized.  I was surprised to learn, for example, about the anti-Catholic movements.  I had no idea about how churches and convents were at the brunt of some rather violent attacks (e.g. the burning of the Ursuline Convent).  And then there was a lot of propaganda surrounding “corrupt” priests making inappropriate sexual advances on nuns. Indeed, it’s amazing how inventive people can become in their hatred towards particular groups.   

Chapter 8-Divisions Within Groups

One element that really stood out to me after reading chapter 8, pertained to a couple of the divisions that developed within certain groups. For one, there were the predominantly Catholic Poles who did not feel as if they were a cohesive part of the American Catholic Church at the time. Based on the reading, it seems that they felt the American Catholic Church represented other Catholic groups/interests, such as the Irish, but not the Polish. Essentially, they very much felt excluded from the church and unequal; Polish priests were not chosen to be American bishops. This exclusion naturally angered the Catholic Polish community; forming a wedge. Eventually that wedge, that division, motivated the Polish of Pennsylvania to create the Polish National Catholic Church in 1904.

I find this division so fascinating. For much of colonial America, the general attitude towards Catholicism was negative, even feared (e.g. I think of the treatment of Catholic Irish immigrants). Although that outlook gradually changed, it seems that religion, in this case the Catholic faith, would or could have served as sort of magnet for those who subscribe to it. It could have served as a means of commonality amongst a variety of immigrant groups who share the Catholic faith. Yet, as in the case of the Poles, it seemed to do the opposite. It’s difficult to ascertain all of the factors that went into this division. On the one hand, the American Catholic Church obviously played their role by not permitting or at least choosing polish priests as clergy members. And also the book discusses how the Polish had a rather strong sense of “Polish American nationalism”; they were a proud people and sought to have a church of their own comprised of their own people, priests, and governing bodies.

Another division that caught my attention had to do with the German-American  Jewish population and their Eastern European counterparts. Here again were two different and distinct groups who shared the same religion (although it could also be said that in some respects they shared a culture/ethnicity as well, due to how “Jewish” is classified). Yet, the Eastern European Jews differed from the former already-established group. They were poor and came mostly from small little rural communities in Russia. They also came from a socialist country, which can influence a people’s mentality. Lastly, while the Eastern European Jews were of course Jewish, they belonged to distinct sects of the faith, including Orthodox and Reform. So, they were their own group, a group that seemed to have little in common with the German-American Jews in some key respects.

The German-American Jewish population, as the book delves into, looked down upon the Eastern European group for their differences. They felt embarrassed by them and poked fun at their Yiddish language. It seems they thought of them as a lower class version of the Jewish population. Perhaps even more shocking, to me, was how they feared the Eastern Europeans would inadvertently fuel the already present anti- Semitism in America. Despite the tensions, however, the two groups did unite to help fight anti-Semitism and to also aid other Eastern European Jews abroad.

  Divisions within broad groups of people albeit religious or otherwise have always and will probably continue to exist. Yet, despite realizing this, its occurrence continues to bewilder me; there are so many groups outside of one’s own that hate, look down upon, that feel animosity toward, tension, etc. that the last thing anyone seems to want is members within their own group to assume these sorts of feelings/attitudes. It seems logical that members of a group should support one; they should be allies. Yet this is difficult if not impossible when no one belongs to any one group. There are many groups that individuals belong to and that help define them. Sometimes the religious ones unite, yet other times it is the cultural, ethnic, or national ones that outshine the others.      

        

Chapter 8-Notes

Chapter 8- Eastern Europeans: POLES, JEWS, and HUNGARIANS

More than 3 million immigrants from at least 26 ethnic groups from the area north of Greece and east of Germany came to the US from 1812 to 1924

Many of these groups, including Eastern Europeans, came to the US during the late 19^th century and early 20^th century

They came to work in the industrial/manufacturing sector in the north-eastern and north-central states (known today as the “rust belt”)

Many of these immigrants were factory workers who helped make America an industrial power at the time

Many factories were owned and operated by Anglo-Americans and higher-ups, such as managers, superintendents, and foreman who were immigrants from some of the more established and assimilated ethnic groups

A lot of what made America what it is were the contributions of immigrants who lived in large cities

Most of the immigrants who came to America's large cities were NOT from European cities, but were peasants from small towns and villages

Many immigrants came to America to earn enough money to buy land in their home countries—many were able to do this, despite their minimal incomes

Immigrants were often poor and had little formal education

Immigrants were often perceived as being “dumb” because they didn't speak the language

Many immigrants about America and it's industrial power

Poles

Most of the Poles who came to America were from one of the 3 European empires:

~ the Austrian-Hungary Empire

~ the German Empire

~ the Russian Empire

(although Poles came from other regions, such as France)

Many non-Polish people (Germans, Jews, and Lithuanians) emigrated from Poland to America

Most Poles who came to America spoke Polish an were Roman Catholic

Of those whose Mother Tongue was Polish:

~ 45 percent were Poles from Russia

~ 35 percent were Poles from Austria

~ 20 percent were Poles from Germany

A few Poles came to colonial America and settled in Jamestown, but the first real group of Poles to come to America came during the American revolution when 100 Poles with military experience came to help fight for freedom

Some Poles were also refugees from rebellions that occurred in the 19^th century

The first Polish American parish was set up in the San Antonio region of Texas by German Poles

Poles established villages in Texas where they were a minority and in 11 other states, located mostly in the north-central part of America

The majority of Poles came to American cities largely for economic reasons

~ The German Poles came first in the 1850s

~ The Austrian Poles came between 1890 and 1914

~ The Russian Poles came mostly in the 20^th century

During the 19^th century and 20^th centuries, approximately 2-21/2 million ethnic Polish immigrants came to America, although about 1/3 actually returned to Poland

Most Poles who came to America stayed here and settled in the “rust belt” region of the country

(North-eastern and north-central states)

Leading 20^th Century Regions for Polish American Settlement;

~ Chicago

~ New York

~ Buffalo

~ Milwaukee

~ Detroit

~ Cleveland

Polish immigrants often had the lowest jobs

Most Poles were encouraged to come to America by other Poles and many came to join family and friends

Polish Catholicism

Although Poles respected and followed their clergy, they would fight with them about various matters

Catholic Poles held a bitterness towards the Catholic American Church, which they felt didn't represent their interests—they felt they weren't included and weren't considered equal to the American Catholic Church---Polish priests were not appointed as bishops

Eventually, the Poles formed the Polish National Catholic Church in 1904

Catholic Poles felt they needed to separate from the American Catholic Church and that they should have their own churches, priests, etc.

In 1908, the first Polish American Catholic bishop was appointed

Polish Americans strongly supported the church and sent their children to parochial school

There was a strong sense of Polish nationalism among Poles and numerous Polish organizations were founded to help support that—many of these organizations supported Polish politics more than American politics

The 2 biggest Polish organizations who were often at odds with one another were:

Polish National Alliance- (PNA)

favored a middle class and secular Poland

Polish Roman Catholic Union- (PRCU)

supported a Poland under clerical, religious leadership

The Poles who stayed in America eventually became known to be “Polish Americans”, a term that didn't really develop until the 1930s

Poles were generally loyal to their work unions in the 1930s and beyond, even though unions were controlled by British Americans

Industrial employers tended to employ particular ethnic jobs so there wasn't a sense of cohesion among workers

Polish Americans did not play a role in politics (until 19200 because:

~ they didn't participate in American politics

~ they focused more on politics in Poland

~ many were not citizens

Eastern European Jews

In 1880, of the 250,000 Jews in America, fewer than 50,000 were from Eastern Europe

(some were descendants of the colonial-period Jews and others were German-Jews)

By 1924, immigration from Eastern Europe was severely limited, but a great majority of the Jews in the country were from Eastern Europe

Because immigration records and the census did not record religion, it is difficult to count the number of Jews in the country at the time

Depending on where they were from, Jews spoke a variety of languages

(most spoke Yiddish, but others spike German, Russian, Romanian, etc.)

Eastern European Jews came to America for 2 reasons:

~ they wanted to improve their standard of living

~ they fled from religious persecution that became pronounced after 1881

During the 19^th century, the number of Eastern European Jews increased dramatically

(from 1.5 million to 7 million)

There was a lot of prejudice against the Jews because of the misconception that Jews were well off with a better standard of living, even though most were not—governments and churches helped fuel the prejudice against the Jews

In the 19^th century the Russian government aggressively repressed the Jews there by implementing laws that restricted Jews, decrees were implemented to banish Jews and other excluding-type actions caused Russian Jews to leave and go to the US

Jewish emigration from Russia peaked in 1906

Eastern European Jews often had a difficult journey coming to America and would have to take longer routes to avoid encountering dangerous regions

(often went through Austria-Hungarian to German ports)

Even though Jews weren't welcomed in Germany, their emigration through German ports was good business for German shipowners, so the government didn't enforce restrictions on the Jews' illegal crossing there

(Jews traveled on sealed trains)

Most of the Jews who left Russia were young, between the ages of 14 and 40 and had industrial skills

A great number of Jews stayed in the US, few emigrated back to their home countries

A significant percentage of Jewish women emigrated back to their home countries

Most Eastern European Jews settled largely in New York and in other northeast and Midwest cities—most came through Ellis Island and stayed in New York City

Most Eastern European Jews were amongst the working poor and lived in Jewish-populated areas that were overcrowded with much disease and crime—terrible living conditions

Eastern European Jews lived amongst other Jews, spoke Yiddish and connected mostly with other Jews

In New York City, the Eastern European Jews dominated the garment industry and most of the industry's shops/factories were owned by European Jews—eventually garment factory unions were formed

Eastern European Jews also came to dominate retail trade—all kinds of retailers existed from small vendors to large store retailers

Eastern European culture was very different from the culture of other Jewish groups in America

Culture

Eastern European Jews

~were poor

~ lived in communal, self-contained rural communities

~ religiously could be Orthodox, Reform, or Conservative

~ came from a socialist country, mentality

There were conflicts/tension between the “uptown” German-American Jews and the “downtown” Eastern European Jews

German-American Jews looked down upon the Eastern European's Yiddish language, their religion and political notions—felt embarrassed by them—the Eastern European Jews resented this—German-American Jews feared the new population of Jews would help fuel anti-Semitism

Despite the divisions within the Jewish community, German-American Jews gave Eastern European Jews financial assistance and other benefits

Both German-American Jews and eastern European Jews joined together to help fight anti-Semitism in 20^th century America

There were still differences between the 2 main Jewish groups, but they became unified in helping Jews abroad in Russian and eastern Europe

Various Jewish organizations were formed

Various small groups formed in communities to hold religious services, helped newcomers find jobs, provided loans and other benefits—kept communities tight and helped newcomers settle in

In 1917, 6 Jews held positions in the House of Representatives and 4 of them represented various Jewish ethnic communities

Although many Eastern Europeans were devoted to their religion, some were NOT—many early immigrants became very secularized and some became agnostics or atheists

American Jews regarded/valued American education, which helped in their upward social mobility

culturally, Jews upheld education

Jews excelled in intellectual and educational pursuits, particularly law and medicine

Many Jews worked in the garment industry, became entrepreneurs, made films/became involved in the film industry, became prominent in theater and social work

Hungarian Americans

The Hungarians or Magyars (group largely from Hungary) represented amongst the immigrants coming from Eastern Europe

Although the Magyars were actually a minority in Hungary

Although there were some Hungarians in America during the American Revolution, the majority came as political refugees during the late 19^th century

Hungarians came to America for economic reasons—Hungary had worsening economic conditions and the Magyars would send money back to their families in Hungary

By 1903, the great majority of immigrant from Hungary were Magyars who sent money back to their families in Hungary, which helped transform the rural economy of their local regions

The Magyar migration only lasted from the late 19^th century to the early 20^th century

Most of the Magyars were under age 30 and were literate

The Magyars didn't have industrial skills and took dirty, dangerous, low-paying jobs and sent the money back to their families in Hungary

Many Hungarians eventually went back home, many others stayed in America

Coal mining and heavy-industy jobs were prevalent among the Hungarians and were concentrated in the Northeast and Middle west (Cleveland, Ohio)

Hungarians established both Catholic and Protestant churches

Siblings in large families often migrated separately at different times of the year (either married men or single young people)

If single immigrants got married in America, they were more likely to stay there, while married men went back to be with their families

When married couples came, they often left the children in Hungary with the grandparents

In the 1920s and 1930s Hungarian immigrants were often refugees from the Horthy regime and later from Nazism

After WWII, 20,000 Hungarians were among the many refugees to come to the US and many Hungarians came following the failed Hungarian Revolution of 1956—most of these immigrants stayed

1.      Where did Poles come from besides Poland/

2.      Did the Catholic Polish population integrate well with the rest of the American Catholic population? Did they feel included and equal?

3.      Describe the relations between the German-American Jews and the Eastern European Jews

4.      What can you say about the Mgyars and their experience?

Qlaudah Equiano-Chapter 2

The account of Qlaudah Equiano is so many things, but particularly sorrowful, eye-opening and unfathomable. Prior to the reading, I was unaware how children were often kidnapped into slavery by neighboring African groups. Indeed, this is dreadful and so difficult to imagine how a youngster, like Qlaudah, must have felt growing up. It’s as if living in a constant state of fear was a normal part of life. Then when he was ripped from his family first, then of course later from his sister that state of fear seemed be a perpetual theme and thread of his experiences/existence. When he describes being torn from his sister “while we clasped in each other’s arms” was nothing short of heart-wrenching. Because they were children makes this scenario even sadder.

It is interesting to note the difference in the treatment he received from the African slave owners versus the European white counterparts. Indeed he suffered through some terrorizing experiences from the former, I definitely wouldn’t want to negate or minimize those experiences, yet overall it appears that he was treated considerably better by the African slave masters than when he later became a slave of the European whites. Qlaudah even mentions at one point how the African slave owners generally didn’t inflict harm upon slaves, other than tying those down who made efforts to escape (but also they did separate him from his sister and he refers to them as “destroyers of human rights).  Here is one example that illustrates the treatment provided by the African slave owners: after the inadvertent killing of the chicken incident, Qlaudah thought he would be severely punished, but instead was “slightly reprimanded “and was cared for without being flogged. Had this been a white European slave master, his punishment would have been decidedly much more grim/brutal. Another example of the kind of treatment he received from the African slave masters pertained to his experience working for the wealthy widow. There he was permitted to not only eat with her and her son, but the son, out of respect, wouldn’t eat until young Qlaudah had eaten first. He also played games with the widow’s son, making it sound as if he was almost treated like an equal. He even referred to what sounded like other slaves who served him and the other boy.  

It is incredible to learn about all of the different cultural groups and environments that Qlaudah was exposed to. Even within his own country he describes many different areas and groups of people. I love how he relates his initial reactions when encountering these groups and settings. When he was at the widow’s home he was exposed to a seemingly picturesque part of Africa; where he got to taste coconuts and sugarcane for the first time. He seemed to have been in such awe of his surroundings there; it sounds like it was lovely. Then later he describes the very different group of people who appeared rather shocking to him. They used iron pots, had different weapons than he’s seen, had different social mores. They had a distinct way of embellishing themselves that Qlaudah felt was disfiguring. When you consider his whole experience it is just so unimaginable—not only the constant fear I mentioned before but also the continual changes that had to be so stressful. And the culture shock!

On a final thought, his account of his entering the European slave-owners’ ships is so horrific and sickening (and a bunch of other things that are indescribable). One of the most hideous was how slaves were deprived of their own right to even kill themselves. Slave owners would watch to ensure that slaves wouldn’t attempt to willingly drown themselves. And if they even tried such an action, they’d be severely beaten.    

  

      

The Cajuns and Huguenots

One part of chapter 4 that grabbed my attention and that I found interesting pertains to the contrast in cultural retention of the (Arcadian) Cajun culture and that of their French Huguenot counterparts. The two groups juxtaposed are incredible in their differences. The first, the Cajuns, were largely farmers and most did not seem to acquire much wealth or power in Louisiana/America. Yet they developed a very distinct culture, something I find completely fascinating. They did not uphold education, they remained true to their Catholic faith, they developed their own dialect/language and they had very large families—many children.  The book doesn’t delve deep into other aspects of their culture, but the Cajuns had/have their own music traditions, folklore, and of course, cuisine. Also interesting is how their culture persevered; it was not lost due to acculturation. I think there were a variety of reasons why their culture endured. For one, their culture was distinct and couldn’t be confused or easily fused with another. Secondly, they seem to have worked hard to retain their culture; it seems it was probably rather important to them. And in a way they inadvertently were likened to sort of “outcasts”, especially when considering that education wasn’t a focus of theirs and many were not literate. In the 20^th century, the dominant culture in America aimed to wipe out the Cajun culture (e.g. Cajun French was forbidden in Louisiana schools).  On the other hand, I find it pretty interesting how they fought the American dominant culture, too. I think that’s helped contribute to the retention of their unique culture.

Many of the elements demonstrated within the Cajun culture/group differed from that of the Huguenots. it appears that after their assimilation (and they did assimilate), they were practically indistinguishable from “American” society. And there didn’t seem to be a definitive motivation for them to remain intact as a group. Perhaps this was due in part to their being largely successful in North America.  Many of them had skills to begin with, became eventually wealthy after their entry, and were seemingly well-liked. They were perceived with much more positivity than the Cajuns were. Hence, being as successful and prosperous as they were, there didn’t seem to perhaps be as much of a motivation for them to try to retain their group of origin (just a guess). Yet it’s also true that they really didn’t seem to have as much cultural “glue” as the Cajuns either. Based on the reading, their main source of solidarity seemed to be based on their religion—being Protestant. Because there were so many other similar Protestant groups, their particular churches didn’t survive. So, they “melted” into the stew…    

West African Societies and Women

I really enjoyed reading/learning about West African society in chapter 3. It’s not surprising that the Europeans often justified their actions/mentality of the African slave trade by adhering to the misconception that Africans didn’t have a “real” or somehow valid culture. To them the Africans were considered “primitive”, backward, non-advanced societally. Hence, through European eyes at the time, stripping Africans from their land and roots was deemed perfectly acceptable. Yet what’s so interesting is how alive and complex many West African cultures actually were. The book examines collectively a handful of the larger groups: the Ashanti, Dahomeans, Mossi, and the Yoruba (although there were clearly many, many other cultures as well, each with their own unique characteristics and signatures). Of particular interest to me was the level of political power women had in some of these African societies. The book describes how the position of “mothers” was used as the male official’s sidekick and in some societies; the queen mother was responsible for nominating the king. This type of power, although women didn’t have the highest positions of power, they, none the less, possessed a remarkable level of influence on political activity. For being a perceived “primitive” society, many African cultures seem to have been considerably ahead of their time. And certainly ahead of European culture’s treatment/allowance of women as political figures or having political roles of any sort. A woman in Europe at this time would likely not have had the same rights afforded to her as a woman from Africa in this context.    

It’s interesting as much as it is infuriating to note the emerged Eurocentric view during the Age of Discovery. The book mentions how the European attitude (and perceived truth for that matter) of White superiority prevailed when European voyages encountered native peoples. The treatment, the degradation, inflicted upon these conquered groups makes my stomach just turn. I can’t imagine having my cultural identity, language, land and freedom so shamelessly stripped from me and my family. Nor can I fathom having a religion imposed upon me. I think it’s fascinating how, prior to the big explosion of New World voyages, Europeans did not seem to assume the superior self-righteous entitlement that was showcased later. The book mentions how there are a variety of reasons for this change, most notably, Christianity, technology, and a drive for increased wealth, which seemed to result in a significant shift in the European culture itself. To me it seems to be a case of the Europeans being power-hungry. And unfortunately, when they started to succeed in such things as ship-building and technology pursuits, it fed their ego and sense of entitlement. I find it equally appalling how the Europeans found their own creative and convenient ways of using Christianity to falsely justify their ill actions and ideas. The tenets of Christianity do not support entitlement, selfishness, greed, superiority, or the forcing of the religion upon subjected others. The Europeans hid their true motives partly under the guise of showing (converting, imposing) natives the “true” way of life—as if they were supporting God. Yet belief and faith cannot be forced to be truly authentic, obviously. Conversely, their behavior was actually very un-Christian in my opinion. The Europeans’ thought processes during this time are clearly ignorant in the highest degree, while their actions are downright embarrassing. They missed what could have been an opportunity to learn and appreciate the beauty and value of the conquered native groups. Shameful, indeed.

It’s also shameful how history textbooks, at least at the time when I was growing up, focused almost exclusively on the European version of the “discovery” of America. As a kid I remember when teachers asked the class what Christopher Columbus did, students would respond by saying that he discovered America. And that notion was generally accepted as truth. There was very little acknowledgement of the native groups, no real analysis of who they were and what their experience could have been like. The unspoken assumption was that the Europeans practically did the natives a favor by showing them the Christian life and exposing and morphing them to a more “advanced” society. It’s remarkable how the Eurocentric view has continued to leave its thumbprint in society today via racism and its (still) high prevalence. Additionally, I don’t believe that the experience of native peoples is discussed adequately and/or enough.    

 

 

Although I know very little about the Olmec civilization, based on the little I do know, I’ve always found them to be a rather interesting group. Their highly distinct/characteristic head monuments are probably one of the first things that come to mind when I think about the Olmecs. While I find the heads to be sort of ugly, they are equally intriguing. Think about how labor-intensive they were to create—and how difficult it must have been to adhere to a particular style repeatedly. It’s quite impressive. These heads were also gigantic (the reading mentions how each head weighed some 40 tons) and the Olmec moved the beastly works for long distances. It makes you wonder things like: how long did it take to create just one head? Where did the idea come from? How exactly did they move them and how many men worked on any one head? It really seems like the Olmec’s signature heads are a key reason why the civilization was deemed so advanced…the “mother civilization” of Mesoamerica at the time. However, the reading mentions how numerous other civilizations were blossoming at the time as well, many from far away locales, so perhaps it isn’t really fair to classify the Olmecs under this somewhat narrow-minded (ignorant?) title. I looked up this “mother civilization” concept, and apparently archeologists have differing opinions surrounding the Olmecs being the sort of central or more advanced civilization of the time. Alternatively, some have likened the Olmecs more to a “sister civilization”—meaning that they, along with a variety of other equally dynamic civilizations, were progressed and noteworthy for that matter as well. I tend to like the sister civilization notion much better because it takes into account other peoples and their unique contributions to civilization. It seems like the whole “mother civilization” theory is influenced by the amount of knowledge that we have about the Olmecs—maybe we don’t have enough archeology or knowledge about the details of these other civilizations, so it is simpler to just designate the Olmecs as the “hub” of human civilization? And it also helps that elements of the Olmec culture seeped into the well-known Mayan culture/civilization.

Of course, the Olmecs very much were advanced, interesting, and complex. I found it particularly interesting how the Olmecs built pyramid-like structures (which sound pretty elaborate!) and how the rulers sported disguises, disguises that they were buried in as well. And rulers would engage in sacrificing their blood to the gods, as the Mayans later did as well.       

Speaking of the Mayans, I found them to be also very interesting. Major foci were war and otherworldly beings, the gods. Apparently rulers were rulers partly because they were thought to have some divine connection to the gods. This is interesting in that, even way back then, as many civilizations are today, politics (including war) and religion (or belief systems) were prevailing factors in what dominated their culture or “government”.  Their war-driven ways could be rather brutal too when it came to captives; the reading talks about how they would dismember people alive….that seems so extreme.  

Yet the Mayans were brilliant and their civilization seemed to really flourish. They not only developed their own comprehensive writing system (the most complex system before the Europeans arrived), but the aim of it was not to spread it. Instead it was meant to be a secret language of sorts—although it wasn’t exactly accessible to most Mayans; only educated types could comprehend it and pass it along to the rest of society. Definitely reminds me of other European civilizations where reading/writing were reserved for wealthy, educated types. Yet I find it very cool and unique how the Mayans kept a secret language.     

First Blog

"America" is such a multifaceted place. The word is a complex label for an expansive piece of land; one comprised of a plethora of peoples and cultures. And it's so interesting how, even when we think of one particular cultural or ethnic segment of the population, the reality is that that those individual groups often have roots in other cultures/ethnic origins. The reading mentions the Philippines for example, with its Spanish background that peppers not only Filipino culture but America's culture as well. A similar example could be drawn from the Polynesian influence present in Hawaii. In these ways, America's seemingly distinct cultural/ethnic groups can be dual in nature, blurring definitive lines of demarcation, adding yet another layer of complexity. Perhaps we could say that America is multi-multicultural. 

I also find it interesting (and sometimes contradictory, illogical) how America can be defined and which parts are conveniently included or excluded. Typically it seems like many of us think of the United States as the true "America", however this isn't actually the case. The reading discusses how history books usually define America by the north and south hemispheres or continents. Keeping with that definition, Canada would be a part of North America. And Canada certainly shares many similarities with the United States (culturally, economically, etc.) yet we do not classify it as "America" in everyday life. Just as we (those of us from the United States) don't consider Canada part of "us", neither do they--do we ever hear Canadians refer to themselves as Americans? This same sort of thinking could be applied to, as the reading states, Mexico, which is also part of North America, but rarely classified as America--the two are viewed as being two separate entities. So here's a question: should our history books change the definition of what constitutes America or do we need to change our misleading perceptions of what America is? It is confusing. Imagine trying to teach a youngster about these concepts...they don't make sense. 

Part of the discrepancy in America's definition, in my opinion, stems from the United States' ego. It seems like the U.S. would rather not affiliate itself too closely with neighboring others out of a fear of downgrading itself. The United States has a long reputation (whether self-inflicted or otherwise) for being "superior" to other nations. Hence, this self-righteous attitude has contributed to the notion that they (or we) are the true essence of America. We wouldn't want to be categorized under the less economically advanced Mexico for example.                 

Created first post