ALWAYS THE SAME OLD FACES

AT MR. POPE’S SOLEMN BANQUETS

I have already mentioned Fortune Pope, the so-called spokesperson of the New York Italian American community and publisher of the least decrepit among the Italian-language newspapers in the United States. By virtue of this role he has had audiences with the president of Italy and the real pope. Now he has been indicted for fraud against his company’s stockholders and the city of New York. Let me begin by saying that there are several people who rejoice at these developments. First of all, the fall of a person in such a visible position (made even more visible by his lust for self promotion) makes the envious happy; the same people who, had they been in his place, would have behaved even worse than he. Then there are those who have been disgusted or hurt by his arrogance. Other happy people, probably, are those who fought battles with him and lost, suffering damages to their interests and ambitions. But it is not his personal case that interests us; rather we are more concerned with the consequences that this disgraceful story might have for the community and for the reputation of Italian Americans

The aspect that impressed me the most in this unexpected and unwelcome story is the silence of the editor-in-chief and the readers of his newspaper. The news of the accusations has occupied several columns of the New York Times, yet nobody in the pages of his own newspaper has risen to defend the accused; despite the fact that here he could have all the space he would ever need to make a counter argument. That hasn’t happen. The only thing the readers saw [in the Progresso] was a tiny, little news item buried inside the paper, in stark contrasts to the occasions when Mr. Pope is celebrated with honors and praise. In those circumstances the news always appears on the front page accompanied by mandatory photos. It doesn’t seem that the readers have expressed any indignation either. Or, at least, I have not seen any letters indicating that the readers were emotionally involved in the story and outraged at this so-called injustice. As far as I am concerned, I have no desire to see the accusation proven. I have no warm feelings for Fortune Pope but I will content myself with the opinion, which I am sure he will be forced to share, that he is nowhere as good as his father, Generoso Pope, if not for anything else, at least for the fact that the son was born with a golden [sic] spoon in his mouth while his father forged the golden spoon with his own hands with tenacity and ingeniousness, in a world much less positively disposed toward Italians than what the son later found. I would be very happy if Fortune Pope could show that he is innocent of all charges with clear and direct evidence rather than by means of crafty lawyers (he can afford to hire best.) I would be happy, not for him, for I don’t care about him, but for the Italian Americans who grew up here and for the Italians who arrived recently from Italy and haven’t yet been beaten down. And finally, I would be happy for all of us, because we always end up having to bear the burden of a public opinion that judges us on the basis on the most sensational scandals and crimes connected to Italian names. For, despite the fact that his father changed his name from Papa to Pope, everybody knows he is Italian.

I am not implying here that all Italian Americans and the recently arrived immigrants from Italy actually want or accept to be represented by Pope and his circle of cronies. To the contrary, we must remark that the group of people that American and Italian official authorities identify as the representatives of Italians and Italian Americans in New York is extremely small. For several years now, if one read the Progresso or attended the banquet sponsored by the newspaper, one would find more or less always the same old faces gathered around lavishly catered banquet tables, with the same names in the list of participants and honorees. For ten years while I was director of Casa Italiana[1] [at Columbia University] I collected the obituaries of important people with Italian last names that appeared in the New York Times. These were Italian Americans who had distinguished themselves but whose names, in most cases, never appeared in the reunions of the people who had appointed themselves representative of millions of Italian descendants. None of the Italian consuls had bothered reaching out to these eminent Italians, none of whom had sought to be associated with the Progresso or with Pope. They did not contribute to fund-raising events and did not show up at colonial banquets and parades. Everyone knows that the claim by the Pope-led group that they are the de-facto representatives of Italian Americans is a complete fantasy. One could see it very clearly on the occasion of the 1950 mayoral election in New York. The candidate endorsed[2] by the Progresso was not elected (rumors circulated that he was also supported by Frank Costello.)[3] The winner, Vincent Impellitteri, received the silent treatment from the Progresso until he was elected. The same thing happened to the other candidate, the Republican Edward Corsi.[4] In that moment it became clear that the so-called Italian vote does not exist. The first evidence had already surfaced years earlier with the candidature of La Guardia, whom the Progresso did not support. He, nevertheless, was elected, not necessarily only with the votes of all Italian Americans, but certainly with the votes of many of them. Yet, [Italian] authorities, as their lackeys call them, never realized this simple fact: the entire prestige of the Progresso and Pope’s rests only on the attention, the honors and the favors that those authorities themselves bestow on him.

Who is responsible for the myth that Pope and the Progresso represent and control the Italian American public opinion in New York and can maneuver its votes? The culprits are primarily the various Italian governments, from the first to the last: the Liberal, the Fascist and the Christian Democrat.[5] I should also add to this list the Catholic Church hierarchy, which is much more influential over the souls of Italian believers than any of the consular authorities. Among those who understood the danger of this arrangement was a sharp but unassuming writer (and maybe too shy), Beniamino de Ritis[6]. When the Italian ambassador of that time asked him for his assessment, he expressed—not very forcefully—the opinion that Pope should not be allowed to buy the Corriere d’America, founded and directed for a while by Luigi Barzini Sr., [7] the only Italian newspaper that was competing with the Progresso, His recommendation was ignored. Another opportunity to get rid of Pope’s influence arrived on the occasion of President Giovanni Gronchi’s[8] official state visit to the United States. It would have been the most opportune moment to reboot the system. The president did not come here to visit only Italian Americans but all Americans. On that occasion, the authoritative voice of Luigi Barzini Jr.,[9] son of the above mentioned Sr., insisted that the traditional banquet offered to honor Italian officials visiting New York should mirror America, not Little Italy, and should not feature Pope as the host. This was not meant as a slight, but Little Italy certainly does not represent America as a whole.

It would take a long time to tell the story of what happened and why the event ended up being the usual colonial banquet with the same faces and the same rhetoric. Other voices have already made the same point, sincere voices, maybe too sincere to carry any weight. And so, many Americans of Italian origin and many Americans who had honored Italy with their deeds were excluded from the events in honor of the president. Everybody is caught in a vicious circle. Favors from Italian governments created a power structure inside the Italian American community that later Italian governments were forced to tolerate, pacify and buy back, despite the fact that none of its members deserved preeminent positions. Who initiated this state of affairs and when? Was it the local Italian officials or was it the ministry of foreign affairs in Rome? It’s hard to tell, but over the years I heard of quite a few episodes that are just shocking. Unfortunately, I don’t have sufficient evidence to prove they are true and therefore I won’t report them. However, I feel the moral duty to put forth my observation. The current pathetic situation derives in great part from the tendency of the [Italian] bureaucratic apparatus to seek the easy way out (the banquet with 1800 attendees, paid by banks or labor unions), with frivolous events (dinners, parades, receptions). In the meantime Italian language programs in American middle schools are the last ones, with a 0.3% attendance among students taking foreign language courses. The leader is Spanish with 18% but even Russian, the latest entry, is higher, with 0.5%. Our bureaucracies do not like long-term plans and they turn to the local organizations only when these agree and go along. The Italian-language publications are read only by the generation of fifty-five years old or older who were never able to learn English and, as a consequence, young Italian Americans do not feel represented by these antiquated relics of the past. What is needed is a long-term perspective and concrete targets. For instance, it is probable that an English-language magazine targeting the new generations of Italian Americans would be successful. We should offer to them the same thing that independent American magazines provide, instead of sycophantic rags that exalt the prominenti. The new generations of Italian Americans should no longer be fed stale bread.

So many things should be done….. The list could go on for ever. Let’s hope that where experience failed, where advice was rejected or ignored, at least disaster will serve the cause.

New York, October 16, 1960

P.S. The decline of Italian language in elementary, middle and secondary schools, which I had predicted, was confirmed by Professor Henry [sic] Golden in the December 1962 issue of the journal Italica.[10]