This has been one of my areas of expertise that I've looked into and you're 100% correct. A page back Tony described it using a house analogy. It's the same as what I described as "taking off their shoes," meaning they respected it. In every Family that included mainland bosses early on starting in the 30's, here is what I found:B. wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 12:14 pm I mentioned this in the op / org thread, but there's an assumption sometimes that only Sicilians valued Cosa Nostra's system and network while mainlanders were seeking to undermine Cosa Nostra and fundamentally change it. There's very little evidence to support this narrative in most cases beyond some individuals having different personalities and biases. There's plenty of counterevidence too. Even Calabrian Pittsburgh members with their own network transferred to otherwise Sicilian-centric San Jose and immediately applied themselves to high level mafia administration and protocol despite that Family having little organized crime activity -- they were interested in maintaining the system for its own sake because it gave them status, resources, and maybe because they simply liked what it was.
We can see that non-Sicilians and Italian-Americans around the country had no issue taking on Cosa Nostra as their own and this was not a "nod" to its Sicilian roots but simply the way the mafia environment evolved in some locations. If Paul Ricca was the consiglio chairman it doesn't mean he was in love with the Sicilian mafia, it just means he saw the value in participating and perpetuating the system for his and Chicago's own reasons much as Stefano Zoccoli did when he moved to San Jose. John Gotti didn't believe in the traditional ceremony because he loved Sicilians -- we know he actually tried to limit Sicilian influence -- it was because Cosa Nostra came to mean something to him personally as an Italian-American in Queens. It meant something slightly different to DiLeonardo but he and Gotti had common ground in that both valued the system. John Gotti had common ground with the DeCavalcantes too even though they were very different.
1 They made no structural changes.
2 They were on good terms with Sicilians due to relationships that spanned decades back.
3 They were more dogmatic about rules and protocol than some Sicilians.
Despite this, there were cultural differences under the service between members of Sicilian and mainland heritage who joined the mob. We get a Sicilian account from Joe Bonanno who didn't so much hate mainlanders but he was of the belief that they could never truly appreciate it. He goes into the whole "process not a thing" stuff and really tries to portray it as a semi-legal association which included lawyers and doctors.
In contrast, we can get a mainlander account in Jimmy Fratianno. While he doesn't directly name the Sicilians, he almost exclusively has problems with them. He looks down on members' sons who entered the organization, regarding them as "deadheads," and Fratianno seemed to weigh a members' weight in their ability to murder.
In the center, men like Gentile, Gravano and Valachi didn't seem to care or at least make a strong point of it beyond mentioning where someone was from. I take this as a sign that during any time in its history, mafia members were diverse in their thinking because it allowed for that to an extent. You've have wildcards, traditionalists, reformers, invigorators, corporate climbers, etc. It's not a hive mentality.
The Family that was most-Mainland influenced was the Genovese Family. By the time information started being gathered, Frank Costello, a mainlander which meant something to him, a de facto leader of the Liberal wing on the Commission had been boss for two decades. Vito came in and there's no evidence that he switched things up, he wasn't around long enough. So what we see in the 60's and 70's is:
1 Larger crews compared to other families.
2 Less Captains, I think the Gams had at least ten more captains then the Gens.
3 Mixed crews with primarily a Companian-dominant demographic. There weren't Sicilian-centric crews by the 1960's like there were with the Gambinos.
4 A long term Acting Administration that still reflected the mafia hierarchy.
The Gambino and Genovese Families are true opposites in their make-up and operandi. I imagine in the Gambinos they have made semi-legitimate members based on their bloodlines or origins with the expectation that they'll "grow into it." With the Genoveses I get the impression that they have to show they are capable of it before getting their membership. I imagine one side may see the other as more-gangster driven while that side sees the other as more lax or soft in who they make. Both serve as prime examples of mafia at work. On one side you see the same bloodlines from 100 years ago, on the other you see "the system" transplanted on those without mafia-backgrounds who adhere to it, respect it and continue it.
Indeed, Chicago needs to be moved from "most liberal" to "most conservative" Family list. Everything Calabrese described seemed to indicate that. And unlike New York where we have examples of members being made because they're simply friends with someone (Ally Persico), I don't get the sense that guys in Chicago were easily made. Using the fact that they had good working and interpersonal relationships with people of other ethnicities as an indicator that they didn't care about their ethnicity or the mafia itself is a fallacy. Detroit had similar arrangements with Greeks, Syrians and later Chaldeans. We see it less in York but I wondered it it perhaps got less reported on. I have evidence of Italians in business arrangements with non-Itals in the 1890's-1920's. I imagine that continues to this day. But unlike Chicago and Detroit, they didn't have a Valachi who was able to describe it and clear up any and all misconceptions.B. wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 12:14 pm I agree Chicago needs to be tackled in the same way NYC has been as far as narratives and myths. It doesn't mean there weren't changes in the Family's mindset / approach when Capone took over, as obviously there were some, but they weren't total and we can see the Family continued to include more "traditional" Sicilians alongside other types of members. It was a highly disciplined Family and Cosa Nostra is first and foremost focused on maintaining order and discipline whether this is applied to the social environment or organized crime. That's why a Pittsburgh member was shelved for not committing an honor killing after his wife had an affair and it's also why the Bonannos shelved a guy for stealing numbers profits even though one was purely a personal matter and the other was organized crime. In Chicago it meant Ross Prio felt the need to whisper about the organization at a location where his crew otherwise talked openly about other underworld gossip.
I agree and I think it's hard to break that habit when that's been the general consensus since the 1980's. Outside of Fratianno, I don't think there are many books that describe the Chicago Mafia's organization in an accurate way. What Chicago had was Roemer, relatives and non-member associates who wrote books. And they all usually agree that Capone wasn't a member and that he created the Outfit. We also have Ricca and Accardo who were influential for 40 and 60 years despite there being an official boss. Outsiders tried to make sense of it and did their best to accurately describe what they were seeing. What they were seeing was the operation, not the organization, which they didn't get an inside glimpse of until the 2000's.B. wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 12:14 pm A theory sometimes comes up on here over the years that Chicago was less traditional pre-1970s and decided to reinvigorate the Cosa Nostra system later. A lot of this comes from the references to Chicago not using the traditional making ceremony then Calabrese testifying that in 1983 he was given the full blood and fire. We know now that incredibly traditional Families didn't do the full ceremony and this didn't mean abandoning the larger system / framework and there's no hard evidence Chicago was different whether there was some lapse in ceremony or not (we really don't have enough evidence on pre-1983 inductions to draw conclusions). The problem with a lack of intel is all we can do is draft theories based on what we currently know but we have to remember these are just theories.
With the idea that Chicago was less traditional earlier and became more traditional in the 1970s or early 80s, it just doesn't seem logical though. Their Sicilian and Italian identity was stronger, with many immigrant members who not only came from Sicilian mafia backgrounds but also mainlanders with their own organized underworld networks. Why would these guys see no value in the system while guys born and/or raised in Chicago did? Maybe some later guys were more like Gotti who emphasized ceremony while some earlier guys didn't, but I see no convincing evidence that Chicago sought to abandon the system and then later generations reversed this. It's not an intuitive theory and it isn't supported in any substantial way.
A big hang-up in Chicago discussions is also language. Too much emphasis has been placed on euphemisms and terms used locally in Chicago as if that changes what's being referred to, but we've learned those weren't the only euphemisms and terms used. As we've learned about other non-NYC American Families we can see Chicago used similar/same language though so these arguments aren't relevant any longer. Because Chicago and Milwaukee didn't use the term "Cosa Nostra" (which Joe Bonanno said he didn't either), it doesn't mean they weren't using the system we know as Cosa Nostra. Nick Gentile didn't use "Cosa Nostra" either but when he said the "Honored Society" he meant the same system.
Re lingo, in NY it's called Soda, in the midwest they call it Pop and on the west coast they used to call it Soda-Pop, presumably we're talking about the same thing. But like terms such as boss, things can get confusing because it can refer to your boss, the boss of a racket, a capodecina, or the actual boss. Like Rick pointed out, people don't always speak like they're in a courtroom. And when it comes to a secret society, we can expect to use slang whenever they can. Frank Calabrese Sr was quite the expert in speaking in code.