History of New York City to 1898 - Assignment Example

History of NYC, Founding to 1898: Three Questions [ID Multicultural scholars and advocates have since given many different alternatives to the melting pot model of cultural assimilation. Things might be more like a salad: Everythings in the same place, but remains pretty unmixed. Or it could be like a stirfry: Everythings still solid, but flavors have run together so they still coordinate. New York City is one of the worlds largest multicultural metropolises. In the modern era, one sees Jews, Puerto Ricans, Latina/os and Chicanos of all stripes, Russians, Irish, Italians, Poles, blacks, Arabs, Pakistanis, Indians, and others, all proud of their heritage, all with support and community groups, all living together. The history of New York from its inception is also like this. The best way to describe New York until 1898 in terms of its ethno-cultural relations is less like a melting pot and more like a sandwich: Wildly different elements, competing against each other for attention and resources, stuck together and forced to get along by sheer geographic fiat and proximity. The term “melting pot” itself comes from the history of New York, specifically its plays. “At the beginning of this century, as steamers poured into American ports, their steerages filled with European immigrants, a Jew from England named Israel Zangwill penned a play whose story line has long been forgotten, but whose central theme has not. His production was entitled "The Melting Pot" and its message still holds a tremendous power on the national imagination – the promise that all immigrants can be transformed into Americans, a new alloy forged in a crucible of democracy, freedom and civic responsibility” (Booth, 1998). The play opened in 1908, providing one clue as to how diverse the city had already become by 1908 alone. Indeed, this was the period of one of the largest waves of immigration ever, and New York, with its Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island welcoming some (though not all) of these immigrants, was in the middle of it all. “The United States was in the middle of absorbing the largest influx of immigrants in its history – Irish and Germans, followed by Italians and East Europeans, Catholics and Jews – some 18 million new citizens between 1890 and 1920” (Booth, 1998). New York was originally a Dutch colony. The Netherlands are famous for their respect for diversity of opinion and creed: The Pilgrims settled there first, finding the area too tolerant for their liking! New York was no different. The Dutch tolerated everyone: Huguenot, Indians, Germans, British, all sorts of religious groups (Foote, 2004; Cohen, 1993). Compared to later, repellent treatment of Native Americans, the Dutch traded peacefully... though the trade of alcohol, as always, would prove to be destructive to Native Americans and to their relations with European neighors (Foote, 2004, 25-26). Though they certainly had some policies that disgust the modern mind, such as the slave trade, they did establish a tradition of religious, ethnic and cultural tolerance that was vital for the later shape of New York. “First, the history of New York City "cannot be understood without recognizing the enduring impact of the Dutch on society and culture." Second, the concept of "Anglicization" is "limited in its explanatory power," because it focuses exclusively on Dutch assimilation and ignores the other side of the coin, what Murrin has termed "Batavianization," i.e., the accompanying acculturation of some of the English to Dutch culture. Third, any discussion of New York Citys colonial society must take into account its African-American population. And fourth, because religion was "the central expression of culture in New York City" during the colonial period, one must consider the relationship between ethnic identity and religious identity” (Cohen, 1993). When the city transferred to English control, it already would clearly be a multi-ethnic city: Dutch, Germans, French and English. The Dutch “maintained political power at the local level, dominating important municipal offices between 1708 and 1730...the Dutch kept the same level of involvement in commerce and continued to dominate the productive trades” (Cohen, 1993). This Balkanization of skills, political influence and style, etc. established the New York-as-sandwich characteristic indefinitely. The Dutch got along with everyone else, but they had special skills, special communities, special enclaves. They intermingled, but also retained their own character. Similarly, the idea of ethnic, racial, cultural and religious diversity is virtually as old as the country itself. “J. Hector de Crevecoeur, a French settler in New York, envisioned the United States not only as land of opportunity but as a society where individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men, whose labours and posterity will one day cause changes in the world” (Laubeová, 2000). However, it is important to note that, for much of America and New Yorks history, this assimilation was very favorable to whites and those of European descent but not so much anyone else (Laubeová, 2001; Steinberg, 2001). There was, and arguably still is, a two-tiered model of assimilation. One was for whites, Europeans, whether they be Jews, Irish, Italians or Poles. Though they would certainly face horrible discrimination, great poverty and difficulty, they had the chance to assimilate. But blacks, Latina/os, Asians and others would never have that same ease of assimilation. Wall Street began as a slave trading post. Blacks and other non-white minority groups would always face difficulties, one of the reasons why the “sandwich” metaphor is so accurate: These groups would be like the lettuce or the tomato, somewhat alien to the rest of the sandwich, of a different type. Nonetheless, as America went on, particularly in the 19th century, the general trend was welcoming more and more people. “The new nation welcomed virtually all immigrants from Europe in the belief that the United States would become, at least for whites, the "melting pot" of the world. This idea was adopted by the historian Frederick Jackson Turner” (Laubeová, 2002). After the Americans gained control, New York became perpetually more and more diverse. “A major influx of immigrants occurred mainly after the 1830s, when large numbers of British, Irish, and Germans began entering, to be joined after the Civil War by streams of Scandinavians and then groups from eastern and southern Europe as well as small numbers from the Middle East, China, and Japan” (Laubeová, 2002). Already, after the Civil War, New York was accommodating the Chinese, the Japanese, Scandinavians from all over Eastern and Northern Europe, and Eastern Europeans. There was a staggering array of languages, religions, and cultural practices. Politics ranged from anti-ethnic exclusionism to radical socialism and anarchism to traditional Orthodox Jewish political expression, often within the same community! Though obviously New York is more diverse now in terms of having a very wide range of creeds, races, ethnicities and national origins, New York was still immensely diverse in 1898. It is important to note that, in 1898 and now, the idea of ethnic construction was certainly forged and reshaped by New York. As Stephen Steinberg puts it, citing Glazer and Moynihan: As the old culture fell away – and it did rapidly enough – a new one, shaped by the distinctive experience of life in America, was formed and a new identity was created. Italian-Americans might share precious little with Italians in Italy, but in America they were a distinctive group... [N]ew forms of identity have evolved to replace older ones, and even economically mobile ethnics have been able to reconstruct ethnic communities in their middle-class suburbs... [T]he culture immigrants carried over with them was itself a product of earlier cycles of adaptation and change...[T]here is nothing unique or foreboding about contemporary ethnic trends in America. (2001) While by 1898 there certainly had not been enough time for cultural atrophy to take place, there had also clearly been fairly substantial assimilation. On the most basic level, the city was no longer either Dutch or British: It was American, and the constructions of identity to that point emphasized that. It is also important to note that the creation of ethnic difference was often manufactured by the choices and prerogatives of institutions. For example: The archetype of the Irish maid or domestic, the “Bridget was the creation of employment agencies that engaged in this human commerce and collected fees for supplying households with Irish domestics” (Steinberg, 2001, 163). While this is only part of the picture, it is certainly true that the way that ethnic communities in New York shaped themselves would be determined to no small extent by the way that the economics, politics and so on of the city arranged themselves. For example: The political machines at Tammany Hall and elsewhere would exploit the swarms of immigrants to rig elections, but in so doing would have to promise concessions that the immigrants wanted. Nonetheless, the major determinant for how communities would behave was their native countries, the differences between them, their strategies for success. There is substantial evidence that, unlike Italian women who immigrated to follow their husbands, Irish women chose to come on their own as domestics, perhaps followed by boyfriends, beaus and husbands back home (Steinberg, 2001 161-164!) Down the line, the story was the same. Jews only became highly educated after a generation of Jewish immigrants used their business and shopkeeping experience to gain money (Steinberg, 2001). The way that ethnic groups behaved was overwhelmingly determined not by any kind of cultural superiority but by different availabilities of education, different treatment by natives (e.g. different amounts of discrimination), and the education and class status of the immigrants. Laubeova argues the following both as a historical trend for New York and where the city can go: “The shortages of the melting pot and salad bowl paradigms can be expressed in the following summarising parables: In the case of the melting pot the aim is that all cultures become reflected in one common culture, however this is generally the culture of the dominant group - I thought this was mixed vegetable soup but I can only taste tomato. In the case of the salad bowl, cultural groups should exist separately and maintain their practices and institutions, however, Where is the dressing to cover it all? Hopefully the solution may be offered by the concept of the ethnic stew where all the ingredients are mixed in a sort of pan-Hungarian goulash where the pieces of different kinds of meat still keep their solid structure” (2000). The goulash or the sandwich metaphor characterize New York most strongly, and did in 1898. Italians, Irish, Chinese, Eastern Europeans, Germans, Dutch, native-born Americans, blacks freed from the Civil War, some Latina/os as America expanded into Mexican and Spanish territory, and numerous others lived in enclaves with their own gangs, tribal structures, businesses and cultural practices. But they all also shared the city, and except for things like gang wars and the racist draft riots, the city became what it was relatively peacefully. Large cities like New York always face immense logistical challenges in managing the sheer survival of all of their residents. Venice had to make sure that they wouldnt sink into the swamp. Early Indian cities had baths. The Romans had aqueducts, roads and infrastructure. New York is no different. The Croton Water System may presently be in need of improvement, but its successes were key to letting New Yorkers survive with as few outbreaks of diseases such as cholera and dysentery and as little toxins in the water as long as they did. Before the Croton Water System, the situation was calamitous. “With a burgeoning population of 30,000, at the end of the 18th century New York City needed a source of fresh water. The City had no sewage system and most of is wells were polluted. Outbreaks of cholera, typhoid and yellow fever were commonplace. Water supplies for fire fighting were inadequate and fires raged unchecked destroying entire city blocks” (Southeast Museum). Something had to change. Southeast, a small New York farming town, would see its entire shape as a city transformed by the decision to “a large reservoir on the Croton River and to bring the water into the city via an aqueduct system. The Town of Southeast was dramatically affected as eventually four reservoirs were built within its boundaries: East Branch Reservoir, Middle Branch Reservoir, Bog Brook Reservoir and Diverting Reservoir. The Croton River originates in Southern Dutchess County. It flows through Putnam and Westchester Counties, entering the Hudson River at Croton-on-Hudson. Its watershed covers 360 square miles and produces approximately 400 million gallons daily” (Southeast Museum). Designer John Jervis created a dam capable of holding 36 million gallons, enough water to provide for the needs of New Yorkers. Immense pipes and aqueducts tens of miles long and big enough to swim through pumped this water from Southeast to New York City. But even this was not sufficient, as droughts in the 1880s prompted the creation of ten more dams (Southeast Museum)! The creation of the dam itself is a window into New York history. Close to four thousand Irishmen toiled for often less than a dollar a day (Southeast Museum)! Just like in the city proper, the Irish were a highly exploited work force paid a pittance. As they asserted themselves, strikes, riots and insurrections held back the creation of the dam and prompted improvements. By the time the second batch of construction began, the Italians had taken the place of the Irish on the bottom of the ladder (Southeast Museum). But while the exploitation was clearly horrible, the dam also provided work for people who might have been stuck in the city incapable of finding work even as good as the dam project. This was how these men provided for their families back in Europe or in the city. And further thought shows that these men were working on something heroic. Their struggle, like the struggle of so many other immigrants to eke out a living, went towards producing infrastructure, towards preventing suffering and death from cholera, typhoid, and dysentery. Of course, like all systems almost two hundred years old, the Croton System now needs something new: Filtration. Commissioner Ward explains: “All data clearly show that filtration in conjunction with a strong watershed protection program is the most effective way to protect the public and increase the reliability of the water supply...New York City intends to continue, and even enhance, its ongoing program to safeguard the Croton watershed from pollution and development. Filtration will alleviate some real concerns about the quality of Croton water and will help ensure that all areas of the City receive the high quality drinking water that New York is famous for around the world” (NYC Environmental Protection, 2003). But the mere fact that a municipal water system is famous at all, if currently facing problems, indicates how important Croton was in terms of making sure that people could safely immigrate to New York, set up shop, and continue to expand the city. Human history has been determined not least by the rush for water. Egypt, Sumeria and India all saw their civilizations emerge on the banks of rivers: The Nile, the Tigris, the Euphrates. New Yorks history of its relation to its water supply is no less important to its history in general. By providing relatively clean water, slowing the spread and transmission of communicable disease, preventing poisoning, stopping the city from burning up and letting even the poorest get access to clean water, the Croton Water System protected New Yorks expansion into a megalopolis. The Commissioners Plan for restructuring the city in 1807-1811s importance cannot be exaggerated. The shape of the city now, the way that New Yorkers can tell almost exactly where a street is going to be just by hearing it, the geography of the city, the way that the boroughs are structured and how neighborhoods have formed of different class, race and ethnic status... all is owed to the structured plan of the Commissioners. As a seminal 1930s article explains, “MOST of Manhattan is laid out on a gridiron plan originated in 1807 by three Commissioners, Gouverneur Morris, Simeon Dewitt, and John Rutherfurd, and approved by the Legislature in 1811. Since the built-up Lower Town could not be disturbed, the Commissioners had an entirely free hand only from Thirteenth Street north, the most southerly street to cross the island completely from east to west. While there was vacant land available below that latitude in the center of the island and toward the east, Greenwich Village, with its hit-or-miss streets, must be respected, and to this day the straight east-to-west course of the streets from First to Fourteenth is either blocked at Greenwich Village or twisted so awry that actually West Fourth Street crosses West Twelfth Street. However, nothing daunted, the Commissioners started their plan as far south as they could, and adapted it where other-wise necessary. Consequently the limit of settlement in 1807 is fairly indicated by the plan. On the East side, Houston Street is the last unnumbered street east of the Bowery; from that point settlements straggled northwestward to Greenwich Village” (Oldandsold). Exact numbers of feet were enumerated: 650 feet between First and Second, 610 between Second and Third, etc. The degree of work that these men put into exactly dividing the city down to the foot is daunting. Michael Wilkins, a New York historian, explains why this was necessary: “In the years since the end of the Revolutionary War the lower part of Manhattan had grown at a staggering rate leading to tangles jumble of streets which had been placed without much thought to the future. In 1807, realizing the need to organize the rapid expansion of urban Manhattan into what was presently farmland, the state legislature formed a commission and place d at its head DeWitt Clinton, the man who would later champion the construction of the Erie Canal” (2010). The reasons why this could not continue were innumerable. Navigation was nearly impossible. Mail would be incredibly difficult to deliver as streets proliferated with duplicate names. Real-estate purchases would be almost impossible to notarize or meaningfully make. Tax collection at the local, state and federal level would be difficult; tax evaders would find it easy to slip into the system. Police and fire would find it hard to navigate to locations safely. And the bevy of blind alleys, corners, and new streets would make it incredibly easy for muggers and pickpockets to catch people in dangerous situations. However, the gridiron did eventually face severe problems (Plunz, 1990, 11-13). The work that began in 1807 assumed a city of under 100,000 people. But by 1865, tenements had exploded over the face of the map, and the city was nearly a million people in size. Individual houses would be impossible under this situation. Further, while the plan was good for administrative purposes, it was far from ideal for families. They had a north-south orientation: People would get sun either all of the time or none. Service alleys hadnt been provided for. This is what made the tenement structure: Buildings had to be highly dense and grow upwards. While the Commissioners Plan had provided for order at first, it had provided chaos now. And it unfortunately was repeated for Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx, with no learning of lessons. Eventually, in the New Deal, the city was finally re-rationalized to accommodate its new size and composition (Plunz, 1990, 13). And this is undoubtedly for the better. But if you think about it, the very shape of the city is owed to the Commissioners Plan. What if the city had been allowed to sprawl out, uncontrolled? It would look like Los Angeles. But instead, New Yorkers were forced to build up, not out. Similarly, the way that the boroughs have combined to form one gigantic metropolitan area is due to the consistent gridiron design that let them run into each other. The unique form of New York, the way that it is dominated by tall buildings, the beauty of Central Park... theyre all owed to the design of a city by an orderly grid system that provided room for growth. Works Cited Booth, William. “One Nation, Indivisible: Is It History?” Washington Post. February 22, 1998. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/meltingpot/melt0222.htm . Web. Accessed 12/13/2010. Cohen, David S. “Before the Melting Pot: Society and Culture in Colonial New York City, 1664-1730.” Journal of Social History. Fall 1993. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_n1_v27/ai_14446825/ Foote, Thomas Wills. Black and white Manhattan. 2004. Oxford University Press. Laubeová, Laura. Encyclopedia of the Worlds Minorities. “Melting Pot vs. Ethnic Stew”. 2000. Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers. NYC Environmental Protection. “DEP White Paper Explains Why New York City Needs A Filtered Croton Supply”. May 23, 2003. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/press_releases/03- 25pr.shtml Oldandsold. “The Gridiron Plan of 1807-1811”. http://www.oldandsold.com/articles14/new-york- 12.shtml Plunz, Richard. A History of Housing in New York City. 1990. Columbia University Press: New York. Southeast Museum. “The Croton Water System”. http://www.southeastmuseum.org/html/croton_reservoir.html Steinberg, Stephen. Ethnic Myth. 2001. Wilkins, Michael. “Today in New York history: The grid”. http://www.examiner.com/history-in-new- york/today-new-york-history-the-grid Read More