From Zoot Suits to Bling- the Chicago gangster's influence on today’s culture

A few weeks ago, I was in Great Neck for the weekend. My friend and I went on a walk around her neighborhood and she told me that an Israeli mobster lives nearby. His driveway is made of marble and he owns the only house in the area that has a gate securing the entrance. People have been killed due to trespassing his house. I told her that I would love to drive by after the Sabbath to do research for my blog post but she replied “do you know that people have gotten shot for driving too close to his house?” I would still have liked to drive by to see a mafia house in New York.

The New York mafia preceded the Chicago Mafia. Johnny Torrio who was originally part of the mafia in New York, moved to Chicago to begin the Chicago Outfit, his bootlegging empire. He then hired two graduates of his alma mater, New York’s Five Points Gang, Al Capone and Jimmy DeStefano to assist him. DeStefano did not accept and was later killed. Capone became Torrio’s protégé and the leader of the Chicago Outfit.

In Chicago, The Outfit and the North Side Gang, lead by Dion O’Banion, became allies. Later they became rivals due to O’Banion cheating Torrio, therefore Torrio had him killed. This murder led to a brutal war between the gangs and Torrio was forced to leave Chicago. Capone then took over the Outfit.

These mobsters were callous with killing. They were dangerous men that would “whack” anything that got in their way. The police were paid off by the mafia and therefore rarely arrested the gangsters. If they were arrested, no one would testify against them. Mobsters were sometimes charged with small crimes such as tax evasion, like Al Capone. He was sentenced to eleven years in prison but was released after six for good behavior.

The Chicago gangsters continue to have an effect on culture today. A movie called “Public Enemies” was released last year about the mafia in Chicago. The movie begins with two gangsters breaking into a jail and freeing some of their gang-members. A policeman convinces them to hide out in Chicago so the mafia will protect them. An investigation agent is promoted to find the gang leader, John Dillinger, that broke into the jail. Dillinger, before his last robbery, drops off his love interest, Billie, to a place that is thought to be safe however the police abduct her and interrogate her about the whereabouts of Dillinger. She does not speak and gives her lawyer a message to tell Dillinger to wait until she is released from jail. Dillinger is later killed and Billie is let free.

Due to the effect that gangsters have had on today’s culture there are “Gangstas” These men are typically known to dress in baggy clothes and are more likely African American. They also commit crimes and carry weapons like their predecessors. Suge Knight has been known to be in a long-time dispute with P. Diddy which is thought to have lead to the death of many gangsters including Biggie Smalls and Tupac Shakur. The feud occurred due to Knight insulting Diddy’s record label and is thought to also have a connection to drugs.

Organized crime today stemmed from the mafia in Chicago. They had a large influence on today’s gangsters. There are murders, bootlegging and gang wars. The real question is: have gangsters really changed?

The Problem With Prohibition!!!

In a recent episode of the hit CBS television show “How I Met Your Mother”, the group of friends visits the Museum of Natural History. As we all know there is a strict “do not touch” policy at the museum to keep the artifacts preserved and unspoiled by constant human contact. In this episode Barney Stinson, played by Neil Patrick Harris, takes it upon himself, with a simple “challenge accepted”, to touch as many artifacts in the museum as he can, despite the prohibition against it.

Prohibition, as defined by dictionary.com, is a law or decree that forbids. The problem with something being forbidden is that it becomes that much more appealing. Not only do we crave the thing we can’t have, but we’ll do almost anything to get it. For example, on a fast day, when eating food is literally a sin, it seems that the only thing we can think of is what we’re going to break the fast on.

Along with the simple definition of this common word, dictionary.com also associates prohibition as the period (1920-33) when the Eighteenth Amendment was put in place. It was during this time that alcoholic beverages could not legally be manufactured, transported or sold in the U.S. The problem with this prohibition was that it did not take into consideration the increased demand for these now banned products. When The Volstead Act, the act that started prohibition in the U.S., was passed it prohibited Americans from producing, selling and moving what was called, “intoxicating liquors”.

The Volstead Act, along with the Eighteenth Amendment, was presented to congress outlining the prohibited items and, despite Woodrow Wilson’s efforts to veto it, was passed. According to Only Yesterday, prohibition slipped under the radar as people wanted to move on from the war and not be involved in the politics of things. It might have seemed beneficial at the time to forbid the consumption of alcohol, along with other fun products, but in reality the prohibition made it that much more exciting to find a way to drink. Now that alcohol and liquors were banned they became that much more appealing to the younger generation, in addition to the recent rampant smoking and fornicating taking place.

In banning goods that were in high demand, the US opened the door to gangsters and racketeers to provide the desired products. Underground, organized crime became widespread as the people’s demand for alcohol, drugs and the like increased. Despite the country’s best efforts to maintain their “dry” status, Americans, especially those of the Lost Generation, were not having it. In 1933, the Eighteenth Amendment was repealed by the Twenty First Amendment once again allowing the sale of “intoxicating liquors” and other banned products.

What I find most interesting about this Act and Amendment is that they contradict the American approach to life which is based on the notion of freedom to do anything. In a country that prides itself on freedom and opportunity, it seems that during this time Americans were not free to drink what they wanted, nor did they have the legal opportunity to do so. Instead of being free to drink wherever they wanted, young people, and alcoholics, were reduced to hiding in corners or underground establishments in order to enjoy their alcohol. “Speakeasies”, which were popular secret drinking establishments that cropped up during the Prohibition Era, were used as places to drink in secret. While those in power were obviously trying to do what was best for the country, they seem to be overstepping their bounds in an effort to maintain the ways of the past, or is it just me?

Porcelain and Pink- A window (literally) into the 1920's

Our class has gained a firm understanding of the 1920’s era through the books Only Yesterday, Gentleman Prefer Blondes, and Notes on Democracy. Each of these works has fleshed out for us different aspects and trends of the 20’s. Only Yesterday taught us how conservative values dwindled as the youth began to embrace sexuality and disregard morality. Gentleman Prefer Blondes helped us gain insight into the fad of being well read and having an appreciation for culture and literature. Mencken described (Ad Nauseam) and defined for us the terms high-brow and low-brow, emphasizing further the importance placed on reading in the 20’s in order to be considered a high-brow. Since these books provided us with a solid foundation of knowledge of the 20’s, when reading a one-act play by F. Scott Fitzgerald called Porcelain and Pink, I was able to pinpoint and understand references to 1920’s culture.

Summary of the play

{Julie and Louis are sisters who sound and look alike. We are told Louis is a year older and more conservative. The play opens with Julie in the bathtub. There is a window above the tub and Louis’ date Mr. Calkins comes to it and begins talking with Julie. He believes he is talking to Louis as they sound alike. (He can not see in the tub to know it is Julie as this is not a perverted play) The bulk of the dialogue is between Julie and Mr. Calkins. Eventually, however, he realizes he is talking to Julie because Louis walks out the front door. The last line is Julie preparing to emerge naked from the tub and the curtain falls.}

Fitzgerald uses Julie and Louis to portray the distinction between the old generation and the youth of the 20’s. Louis, who is older, exemplifies the traditional women who were used to the strict moral code of the early 1900’s. Louis is flabbergasted when Julie tells her that she often walks to the tub naked instead of wearing a towel, “ Why, You little wretch. Haven’t you any pride or self-respect?”(273) Julie comically responds, “ Lots of both. I think it proves it. I looked very well. I really am rather cute in my natural state.” This line portrays the younger generation’s confidence in their sexuality, and their desire to display it. In the next line Julie goes so far as to say that she wishes “people didn’t wear any clothes.” This statement is in stark contrast to Louis who even feels uncomfortable being naked in a bathroom.

Fitzgerald stresses the fad of literature via Julie’s and Mr. Calkins’ window conversation. Mr. Calkins asks Julie, “ Are you growing fond of literature?”(277) They discuss the different works they have read as well as poetry. Julie states that, “ I’m a low-brow. But I can remember by first poem….”(277) Here Fitzgerald taps into two of the key elements of the 20’s. Julie’s character represents the less educated people of the 20’s, those that like Lorelei read because it was trendy. Mr. Calkins, however, is a high-brow and emphatically states, “ Literature- Literature! How much it has meant to me!” (Mencken would clearly approve of Mr. Calkins)

I recommend reading this play because it is both entertaining (Julie has some really funny lines) and educational. In addition to the points above, there are other allusions to key elements of the 20’s; however, I did not write them as I challenge you to read this play (it is very short) and find other references to topics we discussed in class. I would love to see what you come up with! Hope you Enjoy!

Home Sweet Florida

During the 1920s everyone was buying property in Florida. Buildings were being built in every place you can imagine, especially South Florida. "The whole strip of the coastline from Palm Beach southward was being developed into an American Rivera"(236). People were buying land, hoping to build it up and then sell it right away. Some were even hoping to get rid of their piece of land and sell it to another person before their first payment was due 30 days later. As a result of so many people trying to buy and sell their land so quickly, the real estate market began to collapse in the Spring of 1926. There was no one to sell to anymore because everyone was buying and hoping to sell soon. This causes the famous "Florida Foreclosures". These properties all went to foreclosure. A foreclosure is a "law to deprive (a mortgagor, etc) of the right to redeem (a mortgage or a pledge)" (dictionary.com). People couldn't afford to pay for their properties anymore, so the banks took them back.

Growing up in Florida, I have seen many empty houses, many signs on houses saying "foreclosed". I worked in a real estate law firm that was on the side of the banks for a couple of summers. Each summer that I came back to work, they had more and more employees. It is a sad sight to see but it is a reality.

This teaches us that history is bound to repeat itself. The history of the Florida Foreclosures has come back to us. We must learn that something has to be done in order for this not to happen again. We want to learn from our mistakes, not repeat them. Finding a solution to the foreclosure issue will help it not happen again.

"Chicago" and the American Love of Scandal

Two weeks ago, a friend invited me to her room to watch the movie Chicago, a musical starring Catherine Zeta-Jones, Renee Zelweger, and Richard Gere. Since it won six Academy Awards, including Best Picture, I expected the movie to be entertaining, and besides that, Richard Gere is my favorite male actor (Pretty Woman, anyone?). The movie was fantastic, and I was pleasantly surprised to find that it captured the spirit of the 1920s perfectly. One aspect of the movie struck me as being particularly well-done: the portrayal of the American love of scandal.

Before I get into the details, here is a link to the Wikipedia page about the movie, and if you haven’t seen it, the “Plot” section does a good job of summarizing the story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_(2002_film). Coincidentally, “DuduTheFlapper,” the same person who uploaded Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, also uploaded Chicago onto YouTube.

Chicago does an incredible job of portraying the American love for crime, and the scarlet journalism that nurtured it, in the 1920s. Most of the plot revolves around Roxie and Velma vying for the attention of the media—in fact, their lawyer, Billy Flynn, wins their cases by winning over the newspapers. This is shown lucidly in “We Both Reached for the Gun,” a song and dance number in which a group of newspaper reporters at Roxie’s press conference are depicted as marionettes under Flynn’s control. After this press conference, where Roxie gives the media a falsified sob story about her background, she finds herself the subject of every front-page headline in Chicago. Her belongings are auctioned for thousands of dollars to an eager audience, and the American public rallies to her side when she goes to trial. The link for “We Both Reached for the Gun” is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBM82Ju2kJU&feature=related

While Roxie’s popularity provides tongue-in-cheek entertainment for the viewer, Chicago also portrays the grimmer side of the American obsession with violence, most notably in the “Hungarian Disappearing Act” scene. Katalyn Helinski, a Hungarian inmate in Roxie and Velma’s jail block, loses her last appeal and is sentenced to death by hanging; she had been on trial for the murder of her husband, which she did not commit. She becomes the first woman in Illinois to receive the death penalty, arousing the interest of the newspapers. The scene of her death is shown as a circus act with a full audience. Katalyn ascends a ladder, ties a rope around her waist, and dives off a platform, disappearing into thin air before a cheering, whooping crowd. This portrayal, when shown alongside the audience at her hanging, produces a jarring effect for the viewer—it is as if her death is nothing more than entertainment for the crowd. If you haven’t seen the movie, the scene can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmU18AuTlWU&feature=related. It’s at about 2:50 on the video’s timer.

When I watched this scene, it reminded me of the Sacco-Vanzetti case. They too were foreign, subject to prejudice due to their nationality, and were given the death sentence after a highly publicized trial. Any thoughts on this; is the film alluding to the Sacco-Vanzetti case, or are the similarities just a coincidence?

After watching the movie a second time, I’ve been wondering about another question: was the American love of scandal born in the 1920s from the American people, or from the American media? Did the trend arise independently, or was it instead created by the newspaper industry to win more subscribers? I can easily see that “scarlet journalism” was what sold papers, and what sold papers was what got printed—but which side, the public or the media, started the trend? I’m not entirely sure myself; I’d like to know what you think.