Several
years ago, I helped create and oversee a Federal program that provided funds to
organizations that were attempting to eradicate gangs from their communities. I
knew nothing about gangs; thus began my education. I remember spending a few
days in Chicago, conducting site visits with some grantee organizations to see
how their government-funded efforts were progressing. I met with community
advocates, some of whom were former gang members who had served considerable
prison time for their activities, including murder. They told chilling stories
from their gang days, and then shared the reasons why they now worked so
selflessly and diligently to help stop gang violence. It was one of those
amazing, humbling experiences that dramatically changed my worldview.
During a
drive through a rundown, gang-ridden south Chicago neighborhood with an
activist pastor who was pointing out various gang boundaries and sites of past
violence, I ignorantly asked how it was that gangs had made such a stronghold
of the area. I took for granted that everyone knew how awful gangs were, and
couldn’t understand how they came to be so powerful.
This patient
pastor explained that the area was so blighted that it was ignored by most:
there were no businesses, no jobs, little public or other transportation
options for the welfare families who lived there. Most of the commercial
buildings were abandoned and deteriorating, as were many of the residences,
though many of those still housed families struggling to survive. There were no
human services organizations, no food pantries, nothing but the few brave
churches like his who remained to care for the people there. When you have no
transportation, no job options within walking distance, and no ability to
travel to where the jobs are elsewhere in the city, what do you do?
It was a
hard question, but it revealed the answer to my question: the gangs saw a need,
and they filled it. They provided food and other necessaries to those
struggling in the neighborhood. They were the human services agency that the
local government had failed to make available. As such, gangs won the people’s
gratitude, loyalty and affection, enabling them to cultivate and harvest a
fertile recruiting ground for new members.
Why am I
sharing this with you? Because Pekka Hämäläinen’s fascinating book, The Comanche Empire (Yale University Press: New Haven and London. 2008.
Pp. viii, 500), has brought that afternoon with the pastor to mind. Just as
gangs create complex systems of trade and community relationships to further
their own interests, so too did the Comanche manipulate Spanish, Mexican and
Texan citizens into reliance and even near-subjection to meet the Indians’
material needs and imperial goals.
Popular
American history would have us believe that big, bad imperialist Europeans
wiped out all Indians, and the Indians were helpless before the onslaught. Hämäläinen proves
that, for the Comanche, at least, this is untrue. She restores Comanche agency
and, indeed, effectively demonstrates just how capable they were at beating the
Europeans at their own game: “By 1810, the real nerve center of the Southwest
was not Santa Fe, but the western Comanche rancherías along the
upper Arkansas, Red, and Brazos valleys, where peoples from numerous nations
congregated to exchange goods, forge and maintain political alliances, and
organize large-scale multiethnic military campaigns. New Mexico’s economic and
political ties to Comanchería endured, but they had come to reflect its
dependence on, not control over, the Comanche nation.” (202) Hämäläinen goes on
to show how New Mexicans ultimately rejected their own government’s directives,
choosing instead to nurture and maintain their vital trade relationships with
the Comanche. (212-213)
It is the
New Mexicans’ rejection that triggered my memory of the blighted south-side
Chicago slum. A community pursues that which best takes care of the needs of
its people. In the 19th century, the Mexican government failed to
strengthen and protect its New Mexican citizens, opening the door for the
Comanche to fill the void, just as gangs do in impoverished American
neighborhoods today. It is, to me, a striking parallel.
Carol,
ReplyDeleteYour comparison of Chicago gangs and the eighteenth-century Comanches is apt in many ways. Both act as support systems for their people, which is concurrently a blessing and a curse: beholden people unfortunately become further entrapped as they accept the only available help they believe they can find. Hostility breeds hostility. I think another commonality between present-day gangs and the Comancheria is the need to belong -- to belong to something, even if it's negative. The Comanches fought bravely for their own rights (who else would do it for them?), but they were unfazed by taking advantage of settlers and other Indian tribes. In the end, gangs and Comanches have another thing in common -- their ends don't justify their means. Death, continued aggression, imprisonment, the end of a culture . . . and generations who suffer into the future.
What a very interesting parallel you have discussed here. Many if not most people do enjoy simple things in life like food and shelter and warmth, so if a group begins to provide these services, they are thought to be more friend than foe. The Comanches also wanted to open up more trade routes to the north and the east to give access to more good to more people. A middle man which can provide everyday essentials (or atleast comforts) is probably welcomed in many neighborhoods.
ReplyDelete