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.

Additional Post: Dawkins vs. Ridley vs. Miller

I recently had a chance to wrap up an independent term-long project, and the connections between my subject of interest and religion were simply too enticing to pass up.  This year in Freshman Studies we were supposed to (I included supposed to because some people didn’t) read Matt Ridley’s The Agile Gene.  This book is essentially a compilation and brief extension of primary and secondary scientific source material.  Given my own interest and focus in the natural sciences, I was curious as to how this book got onto the Freshman Studies syllabus.  I asked a professor, and I was told that The Agile Gene had replaced a (supposedly) similar book, Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene.  I had heard of this Dawkins character before, and being the curious and inquisitive scientist that I am, I had to read this work.  I was somewhat struck by Dawkins’ “religious atheism”, as Professor Maravolo described it, and I will touch on this subject later, but I found the work to be almost unscientific in the way its arguments were constructed and presented.  At the recommendation of two of my professors, Beth De Stasio and Nicholas Maravolo, I read a third book, Kennith Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God.  Miller’s book provides an interesting argument that is a good contrast to the absolutes presented by Dawkins in The Selfish Gene.  A comparison of these three texts prompted me to think about the relationship between the cultures of science and religion and how they are so often simultaneously intertwined and at odds with eachother.

Kennith Miller makes a valid point when he claims that both religion and science attempt to construct frameworks through which we interpret and assign meaning to existence.  Given that science and religion often arrive at separate explanations as to why things occur/have occurred, it makes sense that there is often conflict between the cultures of science and religion.  One doesn’t have to look far to find the byproducts of this cultural warfare; upset by the scientific claim that the earth is billions of years old (this is in conflict with their accepted Canon), Young Earth Creationists have reinterpreted and created scientific theories to explain their beliefs in a manner that is quite similar to the way that religions reinterpret themselves.  Dawkins makes a clear argument in The Selfish Gene that this sort of thinking is foolish and pointless; according to Dawkins, we should simply disregard conceptual frameworks that are apparently wrong, even if they are useful and practical for some people (i.e. comfortable and conducive to a better/more fulfilled existence).  Miller takes an opposite approach and argues that science and religion are not mutually exclusive; although there are obviously contradictions between some religious texts and currently accepted scientific knowledge, we can use our current knowledge to expand our understanding and appreciation of our religious beliefs instead of focusing on the contradictions and points of conflict(an almost Augustinian way of approaching the science vs. religion argument).

Given that science and religion both provide answers to one of the larger human questions (Where did I come from?) it makes sense that there is sometimes a conflict between the two.  I was slightly bothered by Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene when I read it, as he almost seems to be pushing his own religion (if we can call atheism a religion) on his readers while he simultaneously criticizes the religious beliefs of others.  I’m glad that I had a chance to read Kennith Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God as well, as it provided a nice contrast to Dawkin’s work; Miller’s argument that the different conceptual frameworks of religion and science are not mutually exclusive was well constructed and beautifully written.  I don’t particularly agree with what any of the three authors argue, but I think it is interesting to note that individuals are capable of interpreting seemingly unbiased scientific information into their own conceptual frameworks for existence.  As a student-scientist, I think that an awareness of this phenomena is paramount, and I’m very glad I had a chance to read these books in conjunction with taking Rlst 100.

Finding Religious Content in the Social Work of Jane Addams

For this week’s blog we have been prompted to analyze the religious content of the social work instituted by Jane Addams.  Although it is difficult to directly connect religious meaning with social action, I intend to show that the work of Jane Adams was profoundly influenced by her Quaker upbringing and the conceptual framework which it instilled upon her.  Much of the first chapter in Jane Addam’s book, Twenty Years at Hull House, focuses on her admiration for her father, John H. Addams.  Passages like, “My great veneration and pride in my father manifested itself in curious ways. On several Sundays, doubtless occurring in two or three different years, the Union Sunday School of the village was visited by strangers...I imagined that the strangers were filled with admiration for this dignified person, and I prayed with all my heart that...[I] would never be pointed out to these visitors as the daughter of this fine man” (7) make it clear that Jane Addams idolizes her father and the way that he lives his life.  

 

The difficulty of finding religious content in the social work performed by Jane Addams is that the work itself was not presented as a religious project.  The primary goal of the Hull House was to save and improve mortal human lives, not souls, and Jane Addams does not seem to focus on conveying a religious message to the people that she is helping.  I found this slightly strange, but I did a little bit of extra research and found that many of the ideas and ideals that Jane Addams preached were actually against the social norms of her time, including cultural feminism, women’s suffrage, and social pragmatism.  Given her unorthodox views for the time, it makes sense that Addams would have established an institution that was not directly affiliated with the church, but this certainly doesn’t mean that her actions and beliefs were not influenced by religious teachings, consciously or not.

 

Many of the Quaker teachings that Jane Addams reflects fondly upon in Twenty Years at Hull House are apparent in the social work that she instigated.  I think the most striking example of this is the almost fable-like story that Jane Addams recounts when she is thinking about her interactions with her father.  Jane Addams writes that she had recently received a beautiful article of clothing and she wanted to wear it to church, but her father suggested that she wear a more plain cloak.  His reasoning behind this was that a fancy cloak might make other girls feel bad, and this is a wonderful encapsulation of the Quaker ideal of a community of equals.  It is readily apparent that Jane Addams was trying to improve the living conditions for individuals who were from less privileged backgrounds.  Although Jane Addams did not portray her social work as religious, I think that many of the social ideals of equality and philanthropic leanings of Addam’s were directly due to the religious influence on her childhood.  This may not be blatantly religious in nature, but if we are to assume that religions are simply systems of symbols, what better symbol than an esoteric set of thoughts or values?  Religions act on individuals in ways that create conceptual frameworks through which we view the world, and although I am not an explicitly religious person, I recognize that my upbringing instilled certain religious ideals on my thought processes.  With this in mind, I would argue that the work of Jane Addam’s certainly bears the mark of a Quaker’s religious mind set, and because of this it has religious content.

Damian Marley's "Road to Zion"

Many people recognize Bob Marley as the most influential and successful reggae artist of all time, and he certainly deserves this honor.  However, reggae music is certainly not a genre that is defined or even inspired by one singular artist; there were many influential reggae bands before Bob Marley and the Wailers, and reggae itself changed throughout the course of history as a reflection of the cultural and social conditions that fostered its emergence.  Much like many religions, reggae music has continued to change in response to the environment it interprets.  I recently had a chance to hear a song by Damian Marley, one of Bob Marley’s children, that nicely encapsulates this peculiar aspect of reggae music.  The song is called “Road to Zion”, and the music video for the song can be found by clicking here.

The first thing that struck me about this song was Damian Marley’s lyrics and the overall structure/backing beat of this song.  Unlike much of Bob Marley’s work, this song seemed to have a straight four-count beat with none of the off-beat rhythms that one traditionally associates with reggae music.  Furthermore, the “melody” for this song is comprised of a piano riff that is much more characteristic of Nas’s earlier work on Illmatic than Bob Marley’s distorted guitar, smooth basslines, and pulsating keyboards.  These differences didn’t really make sense until I looked at the lyrics; much of Damian’s lyrics are based on traditional Rastafarian ideas and conflicts (Clean and pure meditation without a doubt/Don't mek dem take you like who dem took out/Jah will be waiting there we a shout/Jah will be waiting there!), but a significant portion of his verses seem to comment more on current issues (Media clowns weh nuh know bout variety/Single parents weh need some charity/Instead of broken dreams and tragedy/By any plan and any means and strategy).  There were certainly elements of both rap and reggae music in this song, but it wasn’t until I watched the music video that I really understood the meaning of this crossover.

In the music video for Damian Marley’s “Road to Zion” there is plethora of Rastafarian symbols, ranging from the Ethiopian colors to the bible.  However, there is also a strong element of inter-city living/rap aesthetic found in this video.  This is primarily brought out by Nas, who has a verse in this song and plays a role in the music video.  However, two of Damian’s lines really struck me as un-Rastafarian: (Bust of trigger finger, trigger hand and trigger toe/A two gun mi have mi bust dem inna stereo).  These lines are really a step over into the gangster rap genre that I had certainly not anticipated.  There are definitely aspects of Rastafarian culture and music in this video (after Nas is captured and put in “prison”, Damian “frees” him by giving him a postcard with the lion of Judah on it, and he has a cart of books that he distributes to other prisoners), but these are often muddle with elements of rap that are sometimes in conflict with the original Rastafarian ideals.  However, for individuals living in America and dealing with different forms of oppression, perhaps this music and imagery is a more fitting interpretation of their experiences.  Damian Marley is certainly catering to a different audience with this style of music, but I find it interesting to see all the various aspects of Rastafarianism and reggae that have been reworked  to fit another style of music geared at a radically different demographic- modern American consumers of rap culture.  Much like religions reinterpret themselves as time progresses, the music of reggae has seemingly found a way to reinvent itself and establish a niche in the popular music market of today.

Rastafarian Documentary: La Orden Boboshanti

After reading several chapters of Rastafari, I was prepared to see anti-establishment feelings and ideas expressed in a Rastafarian community, but the shanty town depicted in the Youtube video (La Orden Boboshanti) was initially unexpected but ultimately appropriate, given our readings.  I would say that my initial surprise primarily stemmed from my previous perspective and exposure to Rastafarianism.  Specifically, Edmonds’ book, Rastafari, prepared me for a community of individuals who have rejected the norms of society and are strong and confident in their cultural heritage and religious beliefs.  However, I got the impression that many individuals, even entire Rastafarian communities, still resided in urban areas, and I was not prepared to see an entire community of Rastafarians living off the land.  However, after some reflection I began to realize that these unexpected characteristics of the Rastifarian community were not really that far-fetched, and that many of the aspects of Rastafarianism portrayed in Edmonds’ book were spot-on.

Perhaps most interesting and appropriate theme that I identified in this short film was the sense of separation from traditional society that this society conveyed.  This entire community appears to be surviving via alternative means, both living off the land and profits from broom sales.  This certainly seems like a good way to escape the “downpression” of western society and freely practice religious and cultural beliefs as a community.  Furthermore, there were many symbolic representations in this community, many of which were predicted in Edmonds’ text.  For example, an entire building was painted the colors of the Ethiopia, and most individuals wore a crown-like head covering.  I found it extremely interesting to note that on one of the signs there was a picture of a black R over a white X, seemingly signifying the superiority of the black (good) over the white (evil).  Given the potential racial exclusion and tensions that arose as a byproduct of cultural oppression, I did not find it surprising to see this expressed in a symbolic nature in this particular community.

Prima facie, this does not appear to be what one would traditionally associate with a Rastafarian community.  However, in light of Edmonds’ writing on Rastafarian religion and culture, many of the things observed made perfect sense.  Although an entire community rising at 3 AM to pray may seem un-Rastafarian and perhaps even cult-like in its behavior, this makes sense when one views Rastafarianism in the way that Edmonds’ presents it; it is an earnest system of beliefs and symbols that arose in a certain group of peoples as a result of cultural and social pressures.  I feel that too often Rastafarianism is viewed as simply a lifestyle or personal choice.  This may be true for some individuals, but for many people it is an actual religion that can permeate virtually all aspect of one’s life.  In light of this consideration, I think it would be practical to re-evaluate our perceptions of Rastafarianism and consider it as a legitimate religion, as it certainly is constructed with a unique framework through which a group of people interpret their experiences.  

Additional Post: Islam in America Documentary

I had a chance to attend Professor Smith’s documentary on Islam in America on Monday.  I found his documentary to be fairly interesting, and I especially liked how he compared two different acclimation responses of Islam to American culture, specifically in Dearborn, MI.  The contrast of Muslim individuals living in a fairly close-knit community with that of a more Americanized version of Islam (what Professor Smith referred to as the mega-churching of Islam, complete with Starbucks) was a helpful comparison.  I think this clearly demonstrates that there are various ways for religion to respond to external pressures, and even in a small community like Dearborn, MI there are multiple ways that a religion can be interpreted to best suit the situation of its followers.

The one portion of the presentation that I was slightly confused with was the question and answer session.  Many of the students seemed to focus on the potential exclusion or discrimination that was mentioned in Professor Smith’s documentary.  Although I’m sure Professor Smith meant to include these accounts as a way of showing the kinds of obstacles that Muslim-Americans have had to overcome, I’m not entirely sure that this was a central point that Professor Smith was trying to make.  To me, it seems that many students zeroed in on this portion of the documentary and missed out on the larger themes that this film conveyed, specifically how a religion acts as a dynamic institution that is simultaneously affecting and being effected by its environment.  This may be a byproduct of the so-called lense that Lawrence instills upon its students, but I was slightly disappointed that more individuals didn’t latch on to some of the more overarching topics that Professor Smith touched on in his documentary.  Overall, I found the documentary to be interesting, informative, and funny (there were few chuckle-worthy moments interspersed throughout), and I’m glad I had a chance to attend.   

The parallels between Mormonism and early Ethiopian Christianity

When we were discussing the process by which Ethiopian Christians associated themselves with Israel, the story of the Kebra Negast seemed oddly familiar to me.  Although we have studied the way that several religions have reinterpreted themselves throughout time, the specific comparison that came to mind was Mormonism.  I did a bit of online research, and the parallels that I found between Mormonism and early Ethiopian Christianity were fairly astounding.  

We have already talked through the assigned reading of the Kebra Negast in class, so I will not take up space summarizing the story, but I would like to restate the function that the Kebra Negast served for early Ethiopian Christians: by establishing a strong link to King Solomon, arguably the strongest Christian leader of Israel, early Ethiopian Christians legitimized their claim as a Christian center.  In turn, this likely piqued the interest of non-religious individuals and created a stronger sense of solidarity within the Christian community of Ethiopia at that time.  By reinterpreting and adding to preexisting stories, early Ethiopian Christians were effectively able to create a foundation for their faith within a completely new and previously non-Christian area.

Although we have briefly mentioned Mormonism during class discussion, we haven’t really explored the underlying beliefs of this religious system.  Admittedly, before writing this blog I wasn’t completely familiar with the teachings of the Mormon church, but the information I found online was surprisingly similar to what we discussed about the Kebra Negast.  Specifically, Mormons adhere to what is basically a reinterpretation of Judaism (specifically the Old Testament) that places one of the lost tribes of Israel in America.  Mormons believe that they are all members of the House of Israel, and many of their names for cities/geographical locations (i.e. Nauvoo) are based on Hebrew names.  The Mormons (often referred to as the Church of the Latter Day Saints) believe that Jesus also established a church in America (during the time of the Native Americans), but this church eventually failed.  However, since Christ saw fit to establish a church in America, America itself is thus given meaning as a spiritual center, and Mormons believe that America will play a large roll in the events of the Last Days.  

Both of these religions are essentially interpretations and elaborations upon previously existing religious systems (as many religions are).  It is not my intent to criticize the validity of either the Mormon teachings, or the reading of the Kebra Negast that we studied in class.  However, I find it extremely interesting to note that both these religions (Mormonism and Christians in Ethiopia) created stories that place themselves in direct relation to Israel, and at times they even relocate the spiritual center of their religion to their respective countries.  This touches on one the key points of Rlst 100 that interest me the most: the ability of religions to adapt and reinterpret previously existing ideas to fit changing cultural and social patterns.  By building off of strong previously existing religious institutions, both early Ethiopian Christians and Mormons were able to legitimize their religious beliefs and establish their homeland as a religious center.