Our Last Visit to Chicago/USS 300 Wrap Up

Our final visit to Chicago as a class was to the Chicago History Museum, which I found to be one of the most enjoyable trips of the entire term.  It was interesting to look at the exhibits and know that this all happened in the city we’ve been spending ten weeks studying.  In one room they were able to house artifacts from the Chicago fire, a video discussing almost every neighborhood in Chicago, and old steam train engines and train cars.  It was a lot to take in in such a short amount of time, and I really wish we would’ve had longer to look around.  I really liked the new exhibit “Out in Chicago” about the gay and lesbian population.  The combination of material on display and voices and videos describing it all really allowed you to be able to see and feel the experiences of this population growing in the city we’ve grown to know and love.  The interactive area for children was fun as well.  I’m fairly certain our entire class (full of twenty (plus)-year-olds) had a blast climbing on the interactive exhibits.  I’ll definitely be going back sometime in the near future so that I can see everything the museum had to offer.

This class as a whole has been eye opening and quite an educational experience.  I had made trips to the city before, but only looked at it through a tourist’s set of eyes, shopping on State Street and Michigan Avenue, and visiting Navy Pier.  Now I know of museums I’d never heard of before, how to get to several areas of the city, and can see things as more of a city goer.  If I could take this class for a longer period of time, I probably would, just to get to know even more areas of the city, and to discuss even more topics relating to the city.

Is Chicago's "Tourist Bubble" Worth It?

As Anne Moore stated in her article “Tourism and Conventions” in the Encyclopedia of Chicago, “Always a place of commerce and spectacle, Chicago from its infancy played host to major conventions and to individual travelers.”  Chicago is known for its tourism and attractions.  However, with such an emphasis on tourism, even historically, it makes me wonder if the city could’ve been spending their money on better resources.  Not only that, but if their recent endeavors, such as Millennium Park are worth the millions the city has spent. 

Tourism in Chicago used to be limited to honeymooners, and other domestic travelers, however since the early 1990s, Chicago’s tourism has boomed.  As Moore states, “The increase in domestic and international tourists had a major economic impact on Chicago in the 1990s, causing a boom in hotel building, restaurant openings, and services geared to travelers.”  According to Moore, and I’m sure most economists and financial consultants in Chicago, tourism has helped Chicago in its finances in a great way, hence more tourist spots being built and added.  However, I have to ask how does a place, like Millennium Park with pieces of artwork and large areas of gardens and walkways, bring in money?  Obviously there are hotels and fast food places surrounding the area, but the actual area of Millennium Park does not house any businesses, other than the Music Pavilion (which often has free concerts).  If Chicago was going to spend money on tourist attractions, shouldn’t they spend it on businesses and attractions that will provide the city with more of an income?  Not only that but wouldn’t the millions of dollars spend on Millennium Park be better spent on social programs, education, or businesses needed/wanted by the population of Chicago?  I feel that with the minimal amount of money Chicago already has, they should not be spending it frivolously on attractions for visitors, they should be taking care of the population that already resides in the city.  This doesn’t mean that they can’t invest in building new buildings or parks, but find a way to bring new jobs or income from these new places.  For instance, instead of building a large park for all to see (that brings in no income and brings about no new jobs), build an amusement park, a new museum, a new shopping center, a water park, something that will fill that tourist need, but also bring about new jobs and an income for the city to spend on its residents.  When a family is on a budget, they don’t set aside money for a huge vacation to Hawaii, they put what money they do have into their children’s futures, into their homes, into their health and well-being.   A city under such a big budget crunch should learn to do the same, spend money on public schools, on health facilities, on building new jobs, not on finding new places to bring in tourists and make the city look pretty.

Chicago Politics and Public Education

Week eight’s class was more of two classes put together.  The first half of class we discussed the popular topic of The Party Machine, and the second half of class we had a guest speaker who discussed with us topics in the Chicago Public Schools.  I know both of my paragraphs are brief, but I found both topics of the week eight class very interesting and wanted to include them both.

In one of our readings, Swanstrom and Judd introduce how the party machine was able to begin, “the emergence of a mass electorate, and industrialization,” (pg. 3).  These two factors did make it easier to control the politics in the city, however I think he skips over some key issues during the beginning of the party machine.  First, women did not have the same rights as men, and didn’t even get a vote until the early 20^th century.  Second, African-Americans were facing prejudice and discrimination and for the most part were not voting either.  This means that the party machine not only appeals most to white men, but was put together, run by, and voted on by white men.  The party machine has changed greatly since women and African-Americans gained the right to vote (and is not for the most part extinct as Judd and Swanstrom stated) and has been looked at on a more equal (but not completely equal) level.  If the party machine had started with such equality, do you think it would have made the same decisions and had the power that it did when it started?

Now on the complete opposite side of the spectrum, there was our guest speaker on education in Chicago.  Although I found what he said to be relevant and interesting, I had to disagree with several of the topics he brought up.  I do believe that a teacher’s union is important so that good teachers are able to keep their jobs and so that they get decent pay, benefits, and support staff.  However, I also believe that tenure is a horrible program.  There are assessments made every year for teachers, but it is based on one class that the principal or administration sit in on.  A horrible teacher can teach one or two good lessons to keep their job, and blow off actually teaching the rest of the year.  A merit based program would not only keep a closer eye on these teachers, it would reward teachers who go above and beyond what they are expected to do.  Now I would like to mention that the information that I speak about is mainly from District 202 in Plainfield, so not everything I’m saying maybe 100% true for Chicago, but I do believe there are enough similarities. 

Chicago's Racial Divide

In today’s society, the segregation between African-Americans is still apparent, but very different from the segregation of yesteryear.  Today, although some segregation is still due to racial stereotypes and discrimination, a lot of segregation has to deal with the economic issues that African-Americans face.  As Koval states in chapter 6, “African Americans, especially males, remain concentrated in jobs requiring little formal education beyond high school and that offer little promise of significant upward social mobility,” (2006:87).  The highly concentrated African-American populations tend to be low income or poverty level areas, and this is due to social mobility.  From the time blacks were brought over to the United States, they have had to work their way up from nothing, and between segregation, discrimination, and lack of education, being able to move upward in society has been nearly impossible for many African-American families.

There are some success stories though, and I feel that I should mention Hyde Park in this instance.  When our class went to the DuSable Museum, they were not able to actually see the success of integration within Hyde Park, they were only able to see the outskirts/border of that area, which was obviously in need of repair and downtrodden with poverty.  For our other Chicago class, my group is studying Hyde Park, and in our interviews, and as we walk through the area, all we have found is harmonious relations between whites and blacks, as well as equal opportunities for school, employment, etc.  The area is approximately 45% black and 55%white.  There are areas of middle-class housing, areas of upper-class housing, and a small amount of lower-class housing, and in all areas, there is no racial segregation.  However, this is really a diamond in the rough when it comes to desegregated areas of Chicago, and is surrounded by African-American poverty filled neighborhoods.  If the attitude and structure of Hyde Park could move outward from its small space, Chicago might have a chance at becoming more of a diverse, harmonious, desegregated city.

Immigrant Chicago: Our Visit to Pilsen

From what I’ve gathered (based on my own experiences in the city and from the readings and discussions we’ve had in class), immigrants not only make up our city, but they define it.  When Europeans first settled in Chicago, we had a lot of cultures coming together, making the city what it has become.  Today, we experience large groups of Hispanic populations immigrating to Chicago, and it is starting to change our culture, including more Spanish signs and directions, introducing new foods, holidays, and rituals, and possibly most important to the economy, supplying Chicago and the United States with cheap labor from illegal immigrants and more of a pronounced Hispanic population in custodial work, lawn maintenance, and un-sought-after-jobs.

The biggest difference between today’s immigrants and the immigrants from the past is the stigma of illegality and the economy.  Back in the 1930s, the economy was starting to be on the rise due to war and industrialization.  Today we are facing the biggest recession since the Great Depression.  This means that more people are out of work, and the unskilled labor that they could take over is being done by immigrants who will work for less.  This places a negative stigma on the new Hispanic immigrants in Chicago and all over the country.  Going off of this topic is the illegal immigrants who work for less, don’t pay taxes, and (who many Americans believe, but not me personally) get away with using  public aid and public assistance and aren’t contributing with things like state and federal taxes.  It is all a big mess, due to the fact that it is a different time.  

The immigration experience is not an easy one for any time in any city, however, there are some factors that make immigrating today much harder than in years past (besides the economy and legality).  The biggest factor is how strongly Hispanic families want to hold on to their culture and language, yet they want to be American citizens.  Although this is not the case for all families, it does harden and hinder the immigration process, taking families longer to get on their feet, and more generations to get to the point of assimilation.  

Overall, the process of immigration seems ridiculously difficult, and I applaud immigrants both past and present for their incredible journeys and successful integration to the United States.