A reminder that class will be held Wednesday, March 16.
The following assignment is due by class time on Wednesday:
Reading: Chudacoff & Smith: read all sections listed under “Readings” tab;
Homberger: read all
Binder and Reimers: read all of chapter 2
Written:
Write 2-3 comments in response to this post comparing and contrasting the main points made by Chudacoff versus those emphasized by Binder. Each comment should be at least 2-3 sentences long. If you are among the first few comment, you should describe the historical changes that are most important to each author. For those that follow, I encourage you to build off of the comments already left by your classmates and deepen the discussion of similaries and contrasts between the authors. You can agree, disagree, or simply to add to the points of your classmates. Every comment should include at least one example from the reading that has not yet been specifically mentioned.
Is the assignment to comment on this post, like I’m doing now, or write a new post.
Yes, that is right: you should all leave comments here, just as Jamie has done.
One of the main points Chudacoff makes concerning immigration was that it caused many problems in society. The rapid increase in population led to racism, overcrowding in the cities, and fears that immigrants took over to blame for the “displacing native workers, depressing wage rates” (Chudacoff 123). The replacement of old houses with four and six-story tenements to house immigrants was an important change, as it brought problems such as lack of ventilation, disease and sewage control to the forefront of reform.
Binder states that, like Chudacoff, immigration caused societal problems, especially in regards to housing. The structure of the tenement was so bad that he deemed water on every floor as a “luxury and that was only in the newer structures” (Binder 43). Similar to Chudacoff, he also states that the policies and actions taken for reform are weak and were not truly effective.
Although immigration caused a rapid increase in population…I think that it caused both a positive and a negative outlook on the cities. Even though living conditions chagned dramtically, it caused for improvements within those living conditions. For example, nowadays, we have laws that protect our living conditions and that would not have taken place if living conditions did not get the way that it was back in those days.
One of the main issue Chudacoff an Binder had with immigration,is the fact that there was racism. Immigrants were only interested in those of the same race. Although they formed separate communities, they could not really avoid each other because they have to depend on one another in order to find a job.
Both authors expounded on immigration and the impacts of it on the people in that society. Binder covers in his writings, the effect of immigration on the ethnicities, specifically the blacks, which subsequently caused racism. Similarly, Chudacoff states the resulting racism in his writings, however, he broadens his argument to the impacts of immigration on jobs – how immigration impacted the availability of jobs within the society.
I agree with Shayna where she stated that the immigration was a contributing factor to the improvement and instigation of buildings to hold the new residents, thus providing new facilities and better living conditions for those who have been residing in that location. Therefore being a positive impact on them.
Both authors talked about the effects of mass immigration; they covered several points in which immigration affected the nation. They have different focuses but one thing I found similar in which they address is, the quality of the neighborhoods, and the segregation of the parts of town.
For example, all the different ethnic groups basically formed their own group, and segregated themselves be it at work or where they lived, as quoted from Chudacoff, “In factories immigrants often segregated themselves in individual departments, perpetuating their separation by recruiting fellow ethnics into similar jobs”(Chudacoff, 107)
In addition, because of the overpopulation it was harder to keep up with the sanitation of the neighborhoods; which led to the outbreak of many diseases and epidemics. For example, Binder addressed this: ” In the Sixth Ward the deathrate in 1863 was three times that of the entire city. Residents of other tenement districts fared hardly better, existing in the most crowded, unsanitary conditions imaginable and
subject to periodic outbreaks of diseases brought on by filth and impure water: typhoid, dysentery, typhus, and, what historian Charles Rosenberg terms “the classic
epidemic disease of the nineteenth century,” cholera, which struck the city in 1832,1849, and 1866.” (Binder, 13)
Shayna and Jamie, I absolutely concur. The living situations for these immigrants were outrageous. Chudacoff describes them as “building that would hold 16-24 families (128).” These over packed and unsanitary living conditions made it possible for housing reforms to begin, and advocators for them to work hard and ensure that living conditions improved. Chudacoff also explains that with these reforms, although the overall impact may have been minuscule, they led to “public health officials and municipal engineers making cities safer and healthier.” He goes on to explain that the discoveries in Europe for the tiny organisms called bacteria also influenced public health awareness.
Binder went a little further into the description. He explains that many religious groups, especially women, felt it was their duty to teach the poor how to properly take care of themselves and improve their living situations. He states that “a good number of concerned citizens believed that poverty was a consequence of character deficiency, and they were wary of assisting those considered undeserving (43).”
Like Chudacoff who talked about other programs that developed such as public health discoveries regarding bacteria, and “diagnostic laboratories [opening] to analyze the incidence of certain diseases (132)”, Binder talks about the Children’s Aid Society. He describes it as a benefit and a conflict because an increasing number of immigrant children were becoming homeless, called “street arabs (44),” many of them were sent West for to learn moral values. Many Catholics were outraged at this because they felt the organization were sending Catholic children to the West converting them in to Protestant individuals. The Catholics eventually made their own reform programs, but as a whole they had little impact on fixing poverty in these communities.
Binder and Chudacoff share very similar arguments about the living conditions that led to racial discrimination and reform to living conditions. Where as Chudacoff goes into detail about the various developments of ethnic neighborhoods, Binder explains the more positives of the city. In chapter 2, Binder notes how the city works together to raise money for the poor, “New Yorkers proved they could be quite charitable for newcomers”(p.35), where as Chudacoff leaned more towards the negatives of his arguments stating how much of the crowding in the cities formed ethic communities and much of segregation was going on against certain groups of people.
Both Binder and Chudacoff do share similar arguments because they both explain the causes and effects of the immigrant population that flooded neighborhoods. They also described how certain problems of this overcrowding lead to reform in housing policies to cater to the middle-class and the poor as well as how the community as a whole contributed to the development of their neighborhoods.
^^Those were supposed to be two paragraphs btw…I don’t understand why they didn’t space out the way i wrote it.
Both Chudacoff and Binder agree on the notion that immigration was at some point, unwanted and regulations were imposed to restrict it. Chudacoff states that “federal legislation closed doors to the unresrticted influx” (Chudacoff, p104) whereas Binder points out that societies which welcomed new immigrants and offered assistance for assimilation were condemned and vetoed against by the Council of Revision of New York.(Binder, p35)
I agree with all the comments above that mention racism as a strong element in the waves of immigration. According to Chudacoff, Asians and Mexicans faced discrimination in all areas such as “housing, employment, and public accomodations”. He also goes on to elaborate on certain aspects like how the Asians were segregated in schools, theaters, and ‘refused service’ in shops, restaurants, and hotels, and had restricted purchasing rights in the real estate sector.(Chudacoff, 108)
Binder and Chudacoff also share the assertion of discrimination prevailing in the labor movement, where African-Americans workers were prevented from being used as strikebreakers (Chudacoff 108) and deemed to have only ‘aggravated a tense situation’, especially with the Irish workforce. (Binder, p55)
It seems that we have all reached similar conclusions regarding the readings. It is true that many immigrants were faced with prejudice and discrimination. As if making the voyage from their homeland was not enough, once they got here they had to make it through government screening and try to avoid getting swindled out of the little money they had left. (Binder 40)But in turn this usually led to the strengthening of their ethnic community as a whole with the creation of organizations like the German Society, Irish Emigrant Society, St. George’s Society, and St. Andrew’s Society. Opposing Chudacoff’s view that most of what immigrants saw was oppression with no way out.
The idea of immigrants “displacing native workers, [and] depressing wage rates” (Chudacoff 123), is not entirely true. Naturally one would think that since more and more immigrants were coming to New York there would be less jobs. But if you thinking about it, all these people are going to need to eat now and dress themselves and every now and then need some type of entertainment. Also there is going to be a need for more housing. The influxes of immigrants not only lead to economic growth because of the increase need for consumer goods, but it actually speed up progress in areas such as building code, sanitation and water distribution.
Both authors main discussion was immigration and how much changes that they made to New York. But one thing that was surprising was the fact of racism between everyone. Even though the living and working surrounding was small people of different race still found a way to separate from each other. The groups that was form help that race survive and keep they customs but made it essayer for them to be subject to racism. Blacks for example was here before many other Europeans like Irish,Poland,and Jews but everywhere they went they face violence and hated for the color of they skin. But with all that they was able to form hey own community in Harlem and because of that many blacks become business and homeowners.
With the large amount of people coming here also came changes. No more was people going outside for water but there was plumbing and sewers. Having so much people made builders think of ways of fitting everybody. No it was perfect but it was a start in having building growing taller and not wider. I agree with shyna on the fact that the new building and living condition brought change in living condition. Now the government was stating was livable and unlivable doing so cut down on the greed of landlords that’s was just packing everyone together for rent money without actually thinking if it is conformable and suitable.
Adding onto Subero argument I think that the people felt it wad they duty to help out because it was they community. At this time many felt the poor was poor because they wanted to. No one was giving out helping hands. The government at this time didn’t really have social programs set up for it’s citizen. So the women in the town helping others with improving they living conditions shows just how much people wanted change. And how one group felt it was they need to change another group to the way they felt was the correct norm for this city.
I agree with David on the term that many did think that with so much people immigrating here those here will loss work but in fact they did speed up the process. Now it was more man power to build the city. And with so many it was easy to pay them less since everyone needed money for survival. Yes they brought diseases and crowded the streets but they help us realize what they city need the most if it was going to be the best city in the America.
Chudacoff and Binder both talk about the effects of immigration on creating new infrastructure, creating an extreme form of racism, and on creating specified suburbs. Chudacoff and Binder both have similar views as to how immigration effected sanitation and infrastructure throughout the city. Chudacoff notes that the increase in immigration led to a decrease in sanitation due to the large influx of people; there were too many immigrants coming in at once. Bincer notes (as stated by Eleazar, that water was indeed a luxury. This also shows how the mortality rate was so high in the city. There were so many people that disease was imminent.
Chudacoff and Binder both talk about the extreme forms of racism. They both demonstrate how people were adressed due to the color of their skin. Binder is specific when it comes to this, speaking specifically about African Americans. On the other hand, Chudacoff took a broader approach – he demonstrated how race and religion highlighted which jobs were available to which people.
Chudacoff and Binder also talk about the specified suburbs that were created due to racism. This involves the topics listed above. For example, racism was apparent within many different religions and cultures. African Americans were highly persecuted. As stated by Harpreet, African Americans created their own community in Harlem. This also holds true for me. I am a Persian Jew living in Great Neck. Great Neck is over 85% Persian Jewish. This is a testament to how people form their own communities and niches.
I agree with Shayna that the dramatic increase in population both helped and hurt the city. This is similar to Binder’s and Chudacoff’s opinions, respectively. Binder stated many positive things about the increase in population and how it affected the city; he stated that many charities were available to help the poor. However, I find that this information is to optimistic, for the increase in population was one of the factors that led to the increase in homeless people in the city. Chudacoff expresses this point by stating that the large increase in population took jobs away from natives, leading to a lower salary cap and a lower standard of living.
I also agree and disagree with David’s statements. I agree that the increase in immigration led to a larger amount of jobs overall. However, I don’t think the increase in jobs covered the amount of immigrants entering New York City. If the amount of jobs created due to the increase in immigration covered the amount of immigrants entering New York City, the amount of homeless people would remain at a relatively stable rate. Instead, the standard of living declined and the wages per worker decreased as well. This can be attributed to the fact that since there were so many workers available in New York City, jobs were expendable, forcing workers to accept lower wages. This is what is happening in China. China has over 1 billion people. The large population allows businesses to decrease wage amounts because if someone quits, another person can easily be put to work. This also happened during the Industrial Revolution in the United States.
Write 2-3 comments in response to this post comparing and contrasting the main points made by Chudacoff versus those emphasized by Binder. Each comment should be at least 2-3 sentences long. If you are among the first few comment, you should describe the historical changes that are most important to each author. For those that follow, I encourage you to build off of the comments already left by your classmates and deepen the discussion of similaries and contrasts between the authors. You can agree, disagree, or simply to add to the points of your classmates. Every comment should include at least one example from the reading that has not yet been specifically mentioned.
Please disregard the last paragraph as it is the assignment…I wanted to see the assignment as I was writing it, and forgot to delete it.
Chudacoff analyzed the impact of immigration as a whole whereas Binder divided it by segments. Chudacoff emphasized on three different waves of immigration, and how the last one influenced everything from the rise of population causing high competition for mediocre jobs, to the rise in housing prices. The author implied that it is because of the mass immigration that the society became filthy and the tenements were associated to be a term for poor housing facilities. The awful and horrendous conditions the poor had to go through caused the government to intervene and set standards for housing. Binder focused more on the different ethnicities and how they tried to survive in a fast paced economy. He mentions that though the housing laws were passed, nothing was done to the housings of black residents. This segregation caused the blacks to continue to suffer from various diseases.
While Chudacoff’s article is more focused on the late 1800’s to the early 1900’s Binder’s article is more generalized in terms of the time period. This is because Binder wants to demonstrate the vast different between the ethnic and racial group that took over and replaced old ethnic majorities. He elaborated that even though the emancipation was passed, none obeyed it. Since the beginning of America, blacks have been discriminated against. Every other race and ethnicity who comes after the blacks arrive receive precedent over the blacks. Chudacoff does not focus on the African American population. Instead, The Evolution of American Urban Society focuses more on the new immigrants who arrive to the United States and how they are faced with the different culture.
Sorry! I didn’t realize I was supposed to post it here, rather than make my own post as we usually do!
* Sorry i did the same thing as Anita and just realized.
Chudacoff and Binder have to different approaches of how they choose to write about immigration. Chudacoff took a generalization of everything and Binder basically broke it down. Chudacoff gave lots of detail. He basically explained everything immigrants were going through and the struggles they were facing. Since the population was rising there was a lot of competition for jobs and there was always ten people waiting in line if you ever got fired. In addition to population increasing housing was going up and most of the people could barely afford to live somewhere that was below standards, so it was a huge struggle. People were crammed into neighbors and no one was up keeping it so everything was cluttered and unsanitary. A lot of people began to get sick. Eventually the government decided to step in.
Binder gives detail to the different ethnic groups of the immigrants. He focuses a lot on blacks and how they continued to suffer even when things were improving for the immigrants. He also stated that the emancipation was past. Which should’ve been a good thing for blacks but it didn’t really change much and it was somewhat ignored by the people. So the main difference between Binder and Chudacoff is that Binder focuses on blacks and slavery where as Chudacoff doesn’t really mention it.
“All the Nation Under Heaven” by Frederick Binder and David Reimers explored almost a same points on immigrants in terms of the social, cultural and economic lives of immigrants, but Binder and Reimers emphasized on the struggle these immigrants encounter towards their identities within the numerous ethnics groups that shaped New York city. It was introduced in narrative way with indicative of historical impact according to ethnicity of each group of new comers.I see the differences mostly occured in the compile of the sequences of events and the causes of this events.
I have posted more details on the blogg under ” The Land of The Future….”
I agree with Sheena and Anita that the main difference between the two readings is the highlight of blacks during this time period. I think Binder’s emphasis on the life and hardships of African Americans who were supposed to be emancipated in comparison to the waves of immigrants coming in to the country willingly provided a more rounded view of this time period.
Chudacoff seemed to emphasize the rate at which the immigrants were flooding into the city and the effect of this on life in the city, which many of my classmates have presented in their comments. The living conditions for the newest arrivals to our country were atrocious and the overcrowding of the cities provided little to no privacy. The overcrowding led to a fierce competition for low skilled jobs which heightened tensions between different ethnic groups within the city.
I also agree with Anita in that the most significant difference between Binder and Chudacoff is the approach they took when writing. For example, Chudacoff writes about the significance of the “waves of immigration” hence the name of one of the sections of Chapter 5. He goes on to explain in his chapter each wave of immigration and what each was like. One example of this would be “Most immigrants in the second wave were poor and of peasant origin, like their predecessors, but they were much more numerous than those in the first wave” (Chudacoff 104). His comparisons of each wave explain to the reader in a chronological what was going on during this influx of immigration.
Binder and Reimers in “All Nations Under Heaven,” took a different perspective regarding the same topic, the immigration waves. As opposd to Chudacoff who explained the characteristics of each wave in a chronological order, Binder and Reimers discuss the impact of this move for these enormous group of ethnicities and its effect on the formation of identities and customs that will stick for decades to come. Binder and Reimers also mention the fact that Manhattan faced adversity with different types of tolerance and conflict. As they write “Then New York’s reputation for toleration and adaptability would be tested as never before” (Binder and Reimers 32).
Most of the people above have already highlighted the main differences between Chudacoff’s explanation and Binder’s. In Chudacoff’s reading, he talked about the different types of immigration waves. These included aspects such as the “origin, skills, and religion”(122) of the immigrants that made up the immigration waves. He gave reasons as to why they came, whether it was for job purposes or something else. Meanwhile, Binder too a more focused view, not on the general picture, but rather its consequences. He talked about how these extremely different groups of people all immigrated to one area and created a giant mixing pot of all cultures. This will eventually shape what will be called the American culture.
Chudacoff and Binder debate a somewhat wide range when it comes to the topic of Immigration. While Chudacoff does make the point that The flux in immigrants breed racism and violence to the effected area, it surfaces good as well. Both would agree though that for any person inhabiting at that time, it was a struggle. Jobs were scarce, housing always an issue, and newly established gangs and just unnecessary hate brewed in the streets and it was an issue that all had to overcome to grow into something better.
Both texts, Chudacoff and Binder, focused on the negative effects of the large influx of immigrants: racial discrimination heightened while living conditions, such as hygiene and public safety, reduced dramatically. While these issues were inevitable due to the lack of technology and advanced implementations, the government was indeed working in order to avoid such issues.
Farzana mentioned in the earlier post that Binder focuses more on the positive aspects of immigration, while Chudacoff focuses on the negatives. While it may be true according to Binder that New Yorkers were indeed running fundraisers and charities in order to help the newcomers, New York was among one of the most dangerous cities at the time due to poverty: crime rates skyrocketed.
Binder & Reimers wrote about the influxes of immigrants from all different places in the world (Hungary, Germany, France, etc), the skills and businesses they brought with them, and how they helped to boost our economy greatly. They write about the reasons for emigration, such as religious persecution and searching for economic prosperity. In addition, Binder & Reimers describe the problems that faced new immigrants on their way to America, and once they stepped onto American soil. For example, immigrants on steamships in the beginning of the late 1850s were subject to overcrowding, hunger, disease, typhus, smallpox, and malnutrition. Upon arrival and after settling down, new immigrants were persecuted by native New Yorkers who felt they were not able to assimilate.
Similarly, Chudacoff wrote about the persecutions immigrants faced upon arrival in America. The 1891 anti-Italian riots in New Orleans, and anti-Chinese riots in the 1870s and 1880s are just a few examples of the horror immigrants had to endure. However, Chudacoff wrote about happier things, too: social advancement amongst immigrants occurred often. Men like John Jacob Astor walked the rag-to-riches route to became one of the richest men in America. Immigrants were quickly becoming business owners and shopkeepers.