Italian America History In Chicago - Maximillian Koerner

Italian American culture in Chicago has not disappeared, but it has moved and changed over time. My project argues that Italian Americans in Chicago assert their identity and value by preserving certain signs of culture, especially food, family traditions, Sicilian roots, and ideas about what counts as "real" Italian American culture. Based on my research using 2020 Census data, Edison Park and the Northwest suburbs now show some of the strongest Italian American presence in the Chicago land area. This matters because Italian American identity is often imagined as belonging mostly to older neighborhoods like Little Italy or Taylor Street. However my research shows that geography still matters but just in a different way. Italian American culture used to be more public in neighborhoods, churches, bakeries and restaurants. Now, a lot of it is preserved more through families, homes, food traditions and memories.

My website helped me understand this better because it showed the actual locations where Italian Americans live today. Before doing this project, I would have assumed Little Italy would still be the main place for Italian Americans in Chicago. But the data showed that Edison Park and the Northwest suburbs had some of the highest Italian American populations. In the map data, the Edison Park area tracts closest to the neighborhood center had 1,710 Italian American residents, or about 15.3% Italian ancestry, compared to 556 residents, or about 6.0%, in the Taylor Street/Little Italy-area tracts. This is important because it shows that Italian American identity did not just disappear when people left the older immigrant neighborhoods. Instead, it moved with them. The culture changed from being concentrated in one neighborhood to being spread out more in family and suburban spaces.

My interview with Michael Maranto also supported this idea. Mike is Italian American and his family has Sicilian roots. When I asked him about growing up Italian American, he said it was not something his family explained in a formal way. Nobody sat him down and taught him a lesson about being Italian. Instead, it was just part of everyday life. He described Sunday dinners, family parties, loud conversations, relatives stopping by, and people always bringing food. This shows that culture is not always taught directly. Sometimes people learn it just by being around it. These ordinary habits were also the kinds of practices Mike did not always name as "culture" because they felt normal inside family life.

Food was for sure the biggest parts of Mike's Italian American identity. He talked about Sunday dinner with stuff like sauce, pasta, meatballs, sausage and sometimes braciole. He also, talked about Christmas Eve fish, cannoli, stuffed artichokes and grandparents making way too much food. This connects to Wallendorf and Arnould's article about Thanksgiving because they explain that food can be a ritual, not just something people eat (Wallendorf and Arnould 1991). In my project Italian American food works the same way. It brings people together and helps families remember who they are.

Food also seems to be one of the traditions that survived the strongest. Mike said language did not survive as much, and some religious traditions also became less common, but food stayed. This makes sense because food is easier to keep going than a language. Even if younger generations do not speak Italian or Sicilian, they can still eat the same foods, cook family recipes, and go to family dinners. Food becomes a sign of Italian American identity.

This is also where the idea of signs and indexicals from class is useful. On the first level, Italian food is just food: pasta, sauce, sausage, cannoli, fish, or artichokes. On the second level, these foods point to Italian American family life, because they are connected to Sunday dinner, holidays, family gatherings, and older relatives. On a third level, these foods become a sign of authenticity and value. When Mike talked about "real" Italian American restaurants compared to fake Italian-themed places, he was not only talking about taste. He was also talking about who has the right to define Italian American culture. In this way, food becomes a way for Italian Americans to assert their own value and self-determination.

My restaurant observation at Club Lago also showed this older public version of Italian American culture. The restaurant had an "old Chicago" feeling, where it felt more connected to neighborhood history than to a modern chain restaurant. The atmosphere seemed traditional and familiar, with the kind of decorations, food, and family-style feeling that made the restaurant seem like it belonged to an older Chicago neighborhood. It did not feel like it was trying to be trendy or reinvent Italian food. Instead, it felt like it was preserving a certain memory of Italian American Chicago. Club Lago showed Italian American identity through the whole environment, not just through the menu. The food, the older style, the neighborhood feeling, and the sense of family all worked together to make the culture public again. This connected to what Mike said about the difference between real Italian American places and fake Italian-themed places. A real place is not only about having Italian decorations or large portions. It has to feel connected to people, family, memory, and food that seems like "somebody's grandmother made it."

This also shows how Italian Americans make distinctions inside their own group. Mike said Italians are very opinionated about food and that they do not like fake Italian places. This is an example of how one ethnic identity can still have differences inside it. There is "real" Italian, "fake" Italian, Italian American, Sicilian, and Americanized Italian. These differences matter because they show how Italian Americans create standards for authenticity. They are not just passively being labeled by others. They are actively deciding what counts as meaningful culture. In Gal and Irvine's terms, these distinctions work like axes of differentiation inside the group, separating authentic Italian American identity from versions seen as too fake or too Americanized.

Language was one tradition that changed a lot. Mike said his grandparents spoke Sicilian dialect, his parents understood some of it, but he only knows certain words. Most of the words he knows are food words, curse words, or things his grandmother would yell. This shows how assimilation affected Italian American families. Carota explains that language is very connected to ethnic identity, but Italian language was often lost in the United States because families wanted children to speak English and fit in (Carota 2019). Mike said something similar. He explained that people with accents could be made fun of or treated badly, so older generations wanted their kids to be more American.

This does not mean Italian American identity disappeared. Instead, it means the identity changed. Vertovec's idea of transnationalism is helpful here. Transnationalism is about connections people keep across countries and borders (Vertovec 2009). Mike has never been to Sicily, but he still feels connected to Sicily through his grandparents, his last name, stories, and food. This is not the same as living in Sicily, but it still matters. It shows that people can keep a connection to a place even if they were born somewhere else.

Mike also made an important point about being Sicilian. He said his family was not just "Italian," they were Sicilian. This matters because Italian American identity is not always simple. Luconi explains that Italian American identity was formed over time and was affected by immigration, assimilation, and regional differences (Luconi 2003). In my interview, Sicilian identity was a more specific identity inside Italian American identity. This shows that even within one ethnic group, there are smaller differences that matter.

Geography was the main question of my project. I wanted to know if living in or near historically Italian neighborhoods affects how much Italian American families preserve their traditions. Mike said that geography does matter because if someone grows up around Italian restaurants, bakeries, churches, and other Italian families, it is easier to feel connected. The culture is more visible. He mentioned Taylor Street, Little Italy, Bridgeport, and the Near West Side as places connected to Italian American history in Chicago.

Candeloro's book on Chicago Italians also supports this because it explains how Italian immigrants built communities through neighborhoods, churches, businesses, and organizations (Candeloro 2003). These neighborhoods made Italian identity public. People could see it in the streets, churches, restaurants, and festivals. This is different from how Italian American identity often works today.

One of Mike's best points was that when Italian families moved out of old neighborhoods, the culture did not disappear. It became more private. He said that in the old neighborhoods, Italian culture was public. You could see it at the bakery, church, restaurant, or on the street. In the suburbs, it is more inside the home. It is Sunday dinner, sauce on the stove, family arguments, and people telling stories. This fits exactly with what my census website showed. Edison Park and the Northwest suburbs have strong Italian American populations, but the culture may not look like an old immigrant neighborhood anymore.

This means the answer to my research question is not just yes or no. Geography does influence cultural preservation, but family is probably even more important. People who live near historic Italian neighborhoods may have more access to Italian American culture in public places. However, people in the suburbs can still preserve strong traditions if their families keep them alive. Mike said he knew suburban Italian Americans who were more traditional than people from old Italian neighborhoods. That shows that location matters, but it is not the only factor.

Foxen and Staats also helped me think about this. Foxen writes about Maya migrants and how their identity changes after migration, but does not fully disappear (Foxen 2007). Staats writes about Guatemalans in Chicago and how settlement affects immigrant communities (Staats 1996). Even though these groups are different from Italian Americans, they show a similar idea. Migration changes culture, but it does not automatically erase it. People keep some traditions, lose others, and create new versions of their identity.

The larger historical process behind this is assimilation and movement out of older ethnic neighborhoods. Italian immigrants and their descendants/children became more accepted as Americans over time, but this also meant that some parts of culture became weaker, especially language. At the same time, economic mobility allowed many families to move away from older city neighborhoods into places like Edison Park and the suburbs. Because of that, Italian American identity became less tied to one neighborhood and more tied to family memory, food, and private tradition.

In conclusion, Italian American identity in Chicago has been preserved through change. My website showed that Edison Park and the Northwest suburbs now have some of the strongest Italian American populations in the Chicago area. My interview showed what that change means in real life. Italian American culture has moved from being mostly public in old neighborhoods to being more private in families and homes. Food, Sunday dinners, family stories, Sicilian pride, and ideas about "real" Italian food are still important signs of identity. Italian Americans assert their value by deciding which traditions still matter and by continuing them even when the old neighborhoods change. Italian American culture in Chicago is not gone. It is just not only in Little Italy anymore. It is also in the suburbs, at family dinners, and in the traditions people keep passing down.