Some Lindy Happenings, in a map!

This is made with a Google Fusion Table. Feel free to click on events and check out their websites! Make sure to zoom in and search a little, as some of the events for some reason aren't showing up unless you zoom in. Google gremlins!




Here is the fusion table itself, should you choose to look more closely at the data.

Looking at the wage and nationality maps of Chicago in the late 19th century, some striking trends emerge. For one thing, there are almost no English-speaking households in the four sections of map, and those places marked as English speaking are almost exclusively brothels. This may be an indication that those families that spoke English were well-off enough to live in more well-to-do neighborhoods and came to the poorer regions only to ply a fairly lucrative trade in prostitution. Those living near these brothels are almost exclusively in the $5-10 range, and mostly Italian. For the most part, indeed, people live with others of their same ethnicity, creating a strong (or relatively strong) community of people from "the old country," whatever that may be in a particular circle. On the nationality maps, there are large blocks of color, indicating a tendency to drift towards people with similar values and experiences; that is, people of the same heritage.

The main nationality lacking in this sort of community bond seems to be English speakers. This probably has a lot to do with the fact that some English speakers, born and raised in America, felt no need to gravitate towards others of their kind, since the country is full of "their kind." It is also highly likely that English speaking people were better equipped to fill higher-paying jobs, allowing them to move to more expensive neighborhoods. The problem of the brothels still remains. Why were the majority of the brothels counted as English speaking, even though the surrounding community had few to no English speakers in residence? Perhaps this stemmed from a recognized niche that could be easily filled by those who were already higher up on the social ladder, mainly English speakers.

In any case, it appears that immigrants tended to live together in as large groups as possible, and each block of nationalities tended to earn about the same wage, mostly very low. Those who earned more, interestingly, tended to live in more diverse neighborhoods, a sort of patchwork of heritages as well as of wage ranges.

Jane Addams

Jane Addams, in her foundation of Hull House, had some definite religious ideas to put into practice, although they may not have been explicitly stated. One of the big motivating factors for her was the religious beliefs of her father, and the values he instilled in her carried over throughout her life. One of the most important or relevant of these values, I think, is the sense that everyone should be equal and have the same chances and so on. This could be seen as a secular belief, one very historically relevant, or it could be a feature of her Quaker upbringing.

Jane Addams' strong devotion and attachment to her project bespeak a commitment that may go beyond the bounds of normal secular attachment. One of the most powerful motivators is a sense of religious injustice, and I think there was a healthy dose of this in Addams' desire to help the disenfranchised in Chicago. Religion was not the only motivator for Addams, but it seems to have been a significant one at the very least, and perhaps the main factor involved in her decisions regarding Hull House.

"The building is a symbol, as is the act of destroying it. Symbols are given power by people. A symbol, in and of itself is powerless, but with enough people behind it, blowing up a building can change the world." This quote, with added emphasis, is from the movie "V for Vendetta," and it applies quite perfectly to the ideas about religions we have been discussing, although in the movie it was applied to politics rather than religion. Geertz, I feel, would appreciate this interpretation of symbols and their meanings, fitting as it does into his definition of religion. Each piece of meaning about the world or the symbols in it comes from the people concerned with it, not from the symbol itself. People become meaning constructors, instilling objects or events with symbolic meanings that help inform or perpetuate their ideas about the world. This is not merely a one-time occurrence; it happens continuously all over the globe in all sorts of situations.

This meaning construction can be seen in any group, religious or otherwise, in our world. Americans impart meaning to the colors red, white, and blue, and children make certain meanings and associations based on the tinny songs of the ice cream truck. Rastafarians create mountains of meaning associated with all their various symbols: the lion, the colors of Ethiopia, the dreadlocks, and Haile Selassie himself. The lion in and of itself means nothing; it is one animal, like so many others. When people decide that it means something else, like a representation of the chosen people, the lion becomes quite powerful, inspiring actions and reactions in hearts that otherwise would remain unmoved by the sight of this African predator. Similarly, the chosen hairstyle of Rastas, the dreadlocks, have no inherent meaning or power by their nature. They only attain power and meaning when compared with the tame, slick hair of those people seen to be oppressing the Rastafarians and when imbued with intentions and power by those who wear them.

Though symbols play a powerful part in any group of loyal followers, they are meaningless without those followers and without the great trust and power they place in symbols. Haile Selassie, for instance, could be a symbol of many things, such as his country, his race, or his gender. But he was not a symbol of God or of the divine nature of Africa/Ethiopia until some people in Jamaica made him so. Everything has the potential to become a symbol to someone; all that needs to happen is for someone to decide there is power in a certain place and proclaim it as being so. Each person could be a symbol of something, even without her own knowledge of the fact. It all depends on how people perceive the potential symbol, what meaning is given to it and derived from it.

The Rasta community in the video seems to be more stratified than I had believed them to be. The impression I had was of basically a commune setting, with one or a few individuals in charge. These different "orders" and ranks seem to contradict that set-up at least a little bit. The Boboshanti are highly reminiscent of Christian bishops or monks, in both practices and ritual attire, suggesting that this Rastafarian community may be similar to some early Christian monasteries or religious communities. The hierarchy that seems to be in place in the community in the video is somewhat contradictory to the ideas of community (in the sense of a commune-- cooperation and equality) that are present in the descriptions in the book.

The power of symbols mentioned in the video, such as the dreadlocks and turban, seems to fit more closely with what we have read about Rastafarians. They, especially in tight communities, seem to be quite concerned or interested in the accouterments and colors they associate with themselves. There is an emphasis on the power that certain colors and styles give to the wearers as "children of Africa," as one woman said in the video. They build houses in the colors of the Ethiopian flag and dress themselves in the same colors, identifying themselves with their brothers and sisters in Africa and expressing their desire and intention to join them there someday. This we do expect from our readings.

Aspects of Identity

From reading the Rastafari book and listening to Bob Marley's music, it seems to be the case that being Rastafarian and being Jamaican are two aspects of identity that are often associated with one another, if not conflated. Being Jamaican, at least for Bob Marley, has much to do with following Rastafari, and the two pieces are not easily separated. They both have quite an influence on his music, and in fact being Jamaican was quite important in the creation of Rastafari as a religion. Religion and nationality are closely knit together in this case.

This does not seem to be the case, however, for many Arabs, as was shown in the documentary shown in Wriston on Monday. There was a rather strong emphasis placed on the difference between being Arab and being Muslim. There were several non-Muslim Arabs mentioned, and the National Arab American Museum did not focus at all on the religious connotations many people have associated with being Arab. Their focus was far more secular, concentrating on a positive public image for Arabs. The large mosque on the highway, on the other hand, focused on the religion, paying little to no attention to the race or heritage of its members. The man talking about the mosque mentioned quite explicitly that he wished to draw a definite line between Islam and Arab aspects of identity.

There seems to be no one "right way" to go about defining oneself as part of a group, or of just one group. One can foucs on one main aspect of identity, making that one the most important, like the Arabs and Muslims in Michigan. One can also, a la Bob Marley and others, put an equal focus on two or more aspects of identity and how they relate to each other, such as, in this case, religion and nationality. Both methods allow the person to self-identify with a group of his or her preference, and neither one is a more "correct" approach than the other.