During class last week, we spoke about the three waves of immigration, migration, and the United States playing their major role as a “nation of immigrants.” The reading that my expert question reflected on was from the Aguilar-San Juan’s piece, Staying Vietnamese: Community and Place in Orange County and Boston. The article starts off by explaining what is needed to form a strong sense of community and the patterns involving community and place. He mainly focuses on the Vietnamese American population in the culturally diverse Boston, Massachusetts and the homogenous suburb, Orange County, California.

The reading compares both Vietnamese American populations and tries to understand the differences of the make up of their communities. It is found that the affluent population of Orange County has a stronger sense of place than the smaller population found in the bigger and more diverse city of Boston. This was puzzling because it goes against what Claude Fischer’s subcultural theory of urbanism suggests, which we also were introduced to in class two weeks ago. In the reading, this theory explains that “cities tend to enhance ethnic distinction, at least at an ecological level, because cities have more people than smaller places do. Boston is more culturally diverse sand more densely populated than Orange County. Thus, one would expect Boston to contain more distinct and recognizable Vietnamese American places than Orange County” (Aguilar-San Juan, 48). My expert question then aimed to circulate around this unexpected conclusion that Aguilar-San Juan comes to. I asked whether or not anyone could reflect on where they grew up and/or personal experiences that could either support or weaken this paradox.

Although there were not many personal examples mentioned, the discussion revolved around answering why this paradox exists. We spoke about how Boston has less critical mass than Orange County, leading to the main issue. This problem in Boston stems from the fact that Boston is such a diverse urban city that it is then difficult to congregate together as a Vietnamese American population. Boston is filled with immigrants from all over, therefore, making it challenging to assemble a strong sense of a community for one culture. Although there is a distinct village called Fields Corner, other Bostonians don’t realize that this is the “Vietnamese Village” of Boston (Aguilar-San Juan, 37). On the other hand, people pointed out that because there are more institutions established in Orange County’s Little Saigon – their Vietnamese American community – there is a more distinctive sense of their culture. Authenticity of culture was also a major point that was brought up in class because with it creates a physical space that reflects your hometown culture accurately. Overall, we concluded that because Orange County is much smaller, yet has a more critical mass of Vietnamese Americans, it is easier for them to collectively form a stronger sense of community and place there.

This discussion in class raised another question in my mind. I understand the pattern that most immigrants usually choose to reside in large urban cities when they come to the U.S. because of the opportunities that exist there. However, because of this paradox, I am curious about whether or not moving out to the suburbs will become more of the norm than living in these big cities for immigrants. Because critical mass plays such an important role, do you think that the popularity of living in the cities is going to decrease because it’s harder to create these strong senses of community?

During class last week, we circled back and spoke about Vargas’ piece about the Latin Kings and Goffman’s account of the 6^th Street Boys. My expert question revolved around the ways in which both of these gangs use surrounding resources in their given spaces to positively affect their groups. For the Latin Kings, it may include lighting a resident’s house on fire in order to enforce the code of silence. For the 6^th Street Boys, it may include calling themselves in to the police in order to escape the death threats out on the streets because a year in jail may seem like a much better deal. For both, with this social control, they had complete power over their communities.

The Kings choose strategies for securing resident cooperation based on the resources residents bring to the gang (Vargas, 136). The more the Latin Kings can scare their surrounding residents and stir up distrust between these residents and the police, the more dominance they have over their streets. Vargas says, “the code of silence is much more complex than most scholars and policymakers think. In addition to a lack of resources constraining police, street gangs actively undermine police-resident relations by capitalizing on police mistakes and fostering mistrust among residents” (Vargas, 146).

In class we connected these instances of social control to Robert Sampson’s theory about collective efficacy and how the Latin Kings and the 6^th Street Boys could be possible examples. These two gangs have the ability to control the residents’ behaviors surrounding them so that they can continue their illegal activities without the threat of the police getting calls. Therefore, this sense of social organization within the two groups, and the powerful scare tactic, creates this so-called “support” from outsiders that ultimately fosters this control.

We also spoke about how these two gangs represent forms of resistance identities since they are both going against typical systems in society, specifically the police system. As explained in class, because there is the feeling that the police are considered a “white space”, this act of rebellion serves as a way for these gangs to fight a system that they feel is oppressing them. For the 6th Street Boys, however, they instead may use the police in a positive manner for their gang when necessary, also going against the typical system.

In Vargas’ piece towards the end, it mentions the police’s point of view in the Chicago community where the Latin Kings’ “code of silence” is prevalent. My original question concludes with asking if there are any paths we can take to come up with solutions to rebuild the trust between residents and police. Vargas touches on the fact that the police have scarcity of resources and too high of caseloads at a time, making it difficult to respond to all calls. On the other hand, the roles of the campaigns and basketball league were mentioned in class, questioning whether or not they are productive in reducing violence in the communities. I am left wondering what the right path really is and how to start, considering all of these circumstances. Should we be focusing more on creating strong, trusting relationships within the community or reinforcing the police system as a whole? Both?