Boundaries in the 19th Ward of Chicago

I noticed several interesting patterns when I was viewing the wage and ethnicity maps provided on moodle. Specifically, there appear to be large areas that are primarily one or ethnicities, and it is rarely the case that a household of one ethnic group is not located near another household of the same ethnic group. I will comment on how this reflects the connection between ethnic identity later in this post, but I wanted to first focus on a comparison between the ethnic composition of these particular neighborhoods and the reported wage rates in these areas.

It was quite interesting to see that there did appear to be a strong connection between ethnicity and reported wage rates in these particular neighborhoods. A quick side-by-side comparison of the wage and ethnicity maps shows that there are certainly aggregations of individuals earning similar amounts of money, and this is certainly not a surprise; generally people try to live around individuals who are of the same socioeconomic status. However, if this wage map were to be superimposed on the ethnicity maps, one would see that the areas reporting higher wages were also from similar ethnic backgrounds (specifically the English, Polish, Bohemian, and Russian groups). This same trend is startlingly true for the poorer areas as well, as the lowest wage reporters ($0-$10) were found in a large group in region 33 of Map 1. This group was predominantly Italian. I find this connection quite interesting, as we studied this particular cultural phenomenon in AP US History. Specifically, “new” immigrants who were not as well established socioeconomically were paid lower wages than “older” immigrant groups who had been in the region for longer.

As I briefly mentioned earlier, there appear to be specific areas in the ethnicity maps where one ethnic group basically is predominant. This is seen on Bunker and Ewing street, where the ethnic composition is primarily Bohemian and Italian, respectively. There are many possible reasons for this, but I would like to propose one possible mechanism that Professor Smith discussed earlier this year. When Professor Smith was discussing his documentary, Islam in America, he noted that neighborhoods such as the Islamic one in Dearborn, MI can arise as groups of immigrants come to America together. The first group generally starts living together, either by choice, economic pressures, or worker housing. This in turn creates a support network, and subsequent immigrants may gravitate towards this particular neighborhood, either due to family connections or simply overall comfort. This creates aggregations of certain ethnic groups, and this trend is still quite visible today (think Chinatown, Little Italy, etc.)

The final question in the blog prompt asks us to determine if there is any common space where people might intermingle. From the maps that I looked at, it appears that the housing is quite cramped and that there is little room for streets, much less common areas where ethnic groups might intermingle. This hypothesis is supported by Jacob Riis’s work, which depicted the harsh cramped conditions that offered no place for children to play, much less larger communal areas. Even Jane Addams comments on this lack of space, and I don’t think it would be a stretch to assume that the cramped residential areas would be primarily constructed to maximize potential housing units for tenants. This lack of public areas may have contributed to the aggregation of certain ethnic groups seen particularly in Maps 1+4, because a lack of public areas of interaction would certainly slowed the cultural assimilation of these various ethnic groups. It is interesting to note that whether by choice or environmental pressures, people generally create well-defined borders for themselves.