Henry Hill Could of Been a Made Guy

Being a huge mob-buff from reading biographies as well as watching documentaries or movies, there was one thing that stood out to me about John Gotti Sr. John Gotti Sr, as big of a mob figure for the modern era of La Cosa Nostra, was far from your model mobster. There are rules, that I believe protect the integrity of the mafia from within as well as in the eyes of the public. Gotti Sr. was so powerful that he persuaded the commission to have his son, Junior Gotti, become a made guy. In the old days, this would of never been permitted by the Commission since Junior wasn't 100% Italian (his mother was half Italian and Russian Jew). Henry Hill couldn't be made because he was half Irish and half Italian (his mother was Sicilian). So did Gotti evolve the inner workings of the mafia or did he cripple it? Carlo Gambino is rolling in his grave knowing that someone who wasn't full Italian was running the family that shares his name sake.

Yes, the rules were eventually changed to where you could be made as long as your father was Italian, but Henry Hill was Irish on his father's side, which precluded him from membership.

As far as Gotti crippling the mob, you'll get no argument from anyone here. But making guys that were only half Italian was hardly his biggest gaffe.

Welcome to the boards.

I agree with pizzaboy, the rule is you gotta be italian on your father's side. Apparently mothers don't count for as much. I hear in the Chicago oufit they'll let almost any ethnicity in, but Gotti's big mistake was drawing all the publicity to the 5 famalies. He attracted too much spotlight.

letting other ethnicities in is actually a smart idea.

All that aside my only problem with this post is you saying the mafia has integrity. It's a criminal organization, don't be so dellusional seriously.

The rule that a prospective member has to be fully Italian on both their father's and mother's side was reinstated by the New York Families in the early part of the decade.

The Chicago Outfit is no different than any other LCN Family. To become a member, you have to be Italian. The difference with them is that non-Italians have traditionally had more upward mobility in the organization, as compared to other LCN groups. But they are still associates, not members.

Idk I've heard reports of Blacks becomeing actual Members.

Then again I haven't read the books on it so I could be wrong.

Then again in order to HAVE upward mobility in the first place, don't you have to be a made member??

Keep in mind that the Chicago Outfit under Torrio and Capone was not a Mafia family. The Unione Siciliana was Chicago's Mafia. Torrio and especially Capone ran the Outfit more like a corporation. Non-Italians rose to prominence: Jake Guzik was both Torrio's and Capone's second-in-command and actually ran the outfit, alongside Frank Nitti, when Capone went to prison. Murray Humphreys was a top-ranking member of the Outfit for decades.
As far as I know, Gotti Sr. was Italian on both sides of his family. His wife, Vicki, had a partly Jewish father, but under Jewish law, since her mother was not Jewish, she wasn't counted (or raised) as Jewish. And Mob "rules" seldom apply uniformly--especially if your father is the Don.

Blacks becoming made members of the Outfit? That is ludicrous. In every LCN Family across the country, you have always had to be Italian to become a fully inducted member. As said, in New York for a time you only had to be Italian on your father's side, but that was changed back eventually. There have been a few cases, like Chucky Porter in Pittsburgh or John Veasey in Philadelphia, that got made even though they were only Italian on their mother's side. But those are the rare exceptions to the rule. There have been others as well, like Frank Salemme in Boston, who was also not full Italian. But there has never been a non-Italian who was made into La Cosa Nostra.

The examples in the Outfit are mostly in the past. But back in the day you had guys like Jake Guzik, Murray Humphreys, Gus Alex, and others who were high level associates with a lot of influence. However they were never in the inner circle of made members who were in the administration, area bosses, etc.

Mob history, at least in this country has proven that being a made guy is actually meaningless. As a matter of fact becoming a made guy in the modern day mob probably had more disadvantages than advantages.

Some very infamous and prominant mobsters proved that they were much more valuable to the mob than most of the made guys ever were. Mobsters like Meyer Lansky, Bugsy Siegal and Arnold Rothstein just to name a few.

Becoming a made man, which was originally considered sacred by the ole mustache petes from the old country, lost it's validity and so called honor because the mobsters in this country became more and more "americanized" as the years went by.

Being "made" has certainly lost much of it's luster over the last few decades. But for many years, it was far from meaningless. There has always been a very real distinction between a guy who is made and one who is not. Rothstein, Lansky, and Siegal were in the early days when the Jewish groups were still a force. And even Lansky, who lasted the longest, was subservient to the LCN hierarchy. As years went by, these high level non-Italians became more and more rare.

You know, I think you have a much too romanticized view of things.

I honestly think that a Black could've been in the inner circle of the Outfit, not every Mafia family is run the same. I remember reading about an outfit in LA that was makeing a guy recently yeah? And they couldn't find anyone to say the oath and all that right? So they just made their own ritual up. I'll look for it again but nonethless I mean, is it so uncommon? I mean if we are to beleive that the wiseguys are the only ones with any ambition in the underworld why wouldn't they take a page out of some of the gangs out there and start allowing any ethnicity in? I mean the Latin Kings have become a nationwide organization and they were once (or maybe still are in some cases) common street punks.

I mean honestly why does it seem so farfetched? I don't think being made ever meant anything to be honest like Henry hill said "Makeing Money was the only requirment that mattered" I really don't beleive all this crap people tell me about a bunch of extortionists understanding the concepts of "respect" and "honor" considering what they do on a daily basis. Sure, there is MUCH prestige attached to the title I suppose but in the long run I say everybody remembers those notable associates we listed and the big bad dons.

I honestly can't name any "Made Guys" I ever cared about.

Romanticism has nothing to do with it. You honestly think a black could have been in the inner circle of the Outfit? Do you have any examples to support you thinking this? I ask this knowing full well that you don't because there never have been, whether in Chicago or any other Family. Have there been black associates? Absolutely. One of the most famous was Elsworth "Bumpy" Johnson, who was essentially a frontman for the Mafia's numbers operations in Harlem. However, the Mafia has always been a "white" enterprise, and more specifically, a white Italian-male enterprise. Most of the famous non-Italian Mafia associates have been white. As I mentioned, Chicago had Jake "Greasy Thumb" Guzik, Murray "The Camel" Humphreys, Gus Alex, and others. There was Hugh "Apples" MacIntosh, who was a high level associate of the Colombo Family. Joe "The German" Watts, a high level associate of the Gambino Family. Zef Mustafa, also with the Gambinos. As said, in the early days there was guys like Meyer Lansky and Bugsy Siegal. Moe Dalitz also. The Mafia has always worked with other crime groups, from the Irish and Jews in the early years, to the Russians, Cubans, Asians, Albanians, etc. today. And nobody said that the Italians are the only ones with any underworld ambition. But within the Cosa Nostra framework, there is a distinct hierarchy, the clearest line being between those who are made and those who are not. And even more exclusive are the high ranking members who make up the hierarchies of each Family.

As for the initiation ceremony, there have always been variances amongst the Families, though it generally follows a basic pattern of the prospective member being brought before a table on which are layed a gun and knife, their trigger finger being pricked to symbolize the blood oath, the burning saint card to symbolize their soul burning in hell if they betray their oath, etc. The Chicago Outfit didn't start using the traditional blood and fire ceremony until the 1970's. In the past the Patriarca Family has had a unique counting system during the ceremony used to determine which crew the new member would go to. The DeCavalcantes did not use the gun and knife in their ceremonies for a number of years and were forced to go through them again by John Gotti. I'm not sure who you are talking about in LA that was making anyone recently. Nobody has been made in LA recently to my knowledge.

Though some Mob families have used blacks as quasi-associates to run rackets for them in black neighborhoods, there is no way an African-American will ever become a made member of the Mafia. The prejudice against blacks runs very deep in the Mob.

Some white non-Italian associates have done very well in modern times. Jimmy (the Gent) Burke was the equivalent of a crew chief in the Lucchese family under Paul Vario. Hugh (Apples) McIntosh, although nominally Carmine Persico's bodyguard, was kind of a de facto consigliere. Paul Castellano had a partnership with some high-ranking Westies to run rackets in NYC's Hell's Kitchen.

Joe (Donny Brasco) Pistone reported, in his book, "The Way of the Wiseguy," that after he was revealed as an FBI agent about to be made in the Bonanno family, the NYC Mob went back to requiring that all made men be Italian on both sides. I guess his pals in the Bonannos are still keeping in touch with him, regularly bringing him news from inside the Mob, seeing as he was almost made.

So much to discuss!

I think the idea of Black Americans becoming formal made members of the Mafia is not going to happen. I don't think it's ever happened. The Mafia is not an equal opportunity employer. Many Mafiosi are profoundly, irredeemably and proudly racist. There have of course been instances when some Mafia families have done business with Blacks. This is usually on the Mafia's terms.

For example in The Way of the Wiseguy, Donnie Brasco points out that a Black associate who ran numbers for the Family in Harlem would come down to Little Italy once a week to settle up. However the Family had a rule barring Blacks from the social clubs. No exceptions. So the guy would have to wait outside, no matter what the weather. If the weather was bad the mobsters would get a kick out of making the guy wait even longer. It didn't matter that he was bringing them money. He was Black.

Here, the incarcerated Gotti shares some of his thoughts on Black people.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/blowingupgotti/

From what I've seen Gotti's views are par for the course.

Of course there are individual mobsters who get along better with Blacks. There have been powerful Black associates or rivals to the Mafia. But there aren't any Black Mafioso.

The Chicago Outfit was different, not in its views on Blacks but rather its view on non-Italians and mob hierarchy in general. The Outfit, at least during its heyday up through the seventies, was not exactly organized like a Mafia family. It was organized more like a corporation. In addition although the very top executive was always Italian, there were numerous non Italians who carried power in their own name, not just as subservient "associates". Accardo, Ricca and Humphreys made up a troika that ultimately even Giancana had to answer to. In the sixties and seventies, Hy Larner became a very big shot in the Chicago Outfit. He had Italians working for him. There was no question about who was "made" and who wasn't.

That aside , everywhere else though the only people who are eligible to get "made" are white males of Italian descent.

Most criminal gangs (especially in prison) are based on ethnicity. How many Black Hell's Angels or Aryan Brotherhood members do we see?

That's not true. I know of at least two guys (both sons of capos), who were "made" in the last 5 or 6 years; one's mother is Jewish, the other Irish. So obviously, the bosses still bend the rules for their own.

And Don Cardi is right; being a made guy ain't what it used to be. First and foremost, you become an automatic target for the Government. It seems they know about it about an hour after the ceremony.

Thats exactly what I'm saying, I mean if it was organized differently doesn't it seem a tad likely that one could be a member regardless of ethnicity? If it's organized mroe like a corporation wouldn't techical "membership" be different than being a made guy? Ok fine I'll conede now until I'll actually read the book but I did remember reading an article that said it, why would I think othewrwise? *goes to his local library*

And yes gangs are usually based one ethnicity, espiclly in prison where it's their unifying factor. but theres pletny more examples of prominent street gangs that grew to let anyone in. i.e. LK, The Tiny Rascals, Vice Lords, Gangster Diciples (sp), etc.

Sure I wouldn't see a black in the aryan brotherhood but then again the entire theme of the AB is that whites are superior. Although they do work with La eme (which one of their founding members was a yugoslavian). But theres plenty of cases of multi-ethnic groups out there espiclly amongst street gangs.

I try to keep an open mind. So if you can find evidence of actual existing or historic Black members of the Chicago Outfit I'll certainly look at it. Thanks.

But this is the same Chicago Outfit that was closely associated with the bedroom mob town of Cicero, during the fifties and sixties a place so seething with anti-black feeling that MLK was warned not to march there and indeed didn't. Mobsters usually aren't on the more progressive end of the political scale.

All the books or documents I've ever seen indicate that Chicago Outfit members and associates were primarily if not exclusively Caucasian, mostly Italian and many held relatively negative views of Blacks.

They may have had Black employees or occasionally even business partners. But those people were not peers or members.

For example, Giancana and his group led a violent takeover of Black numbers rackets in the fifties. Those Black mobsters who survived didn't become Outfit members. They were just employees.

I, too, find it hard to believe.

Hey Lilo, nice to see you back on the boards. Where've you been hiding?

The official rule is that both parents of the prospective member have to be Italian. Now does the Mob skirt this rule as it has many times in the past? Yes. But it is probably only those who are well connected, like Junior Gotti was or like the sons of captains you mentioned above.

Wouldn't other mobsters be offended by rule breaking/changing? After all if the boss can break rules, whats to stop the average soldier?

You're looking for something that just isn't there and never will be. Yes, the Outfit was organized differently than other LCN Families, especially in the early days. That's why I said non-Italian associates had more upward mobility. But even the ones who became very powerful in their own right were never eligible to become fully inducted members.

You just answered your own question. The boss is the boss and has more power to do what he wants than a soldier. Those guys who are not full Italian becoming made members, besides being well connected, are the exception to the rule. In most cases, your average prospective member has to be full Italian in New York.

Because the boss makes the rules..
If the soldier doesn't like it he can certainly make his displeasure known. His survivors and heirs can speak proudly of his courage..

That's all I'm trying to say, JST. When it suits these guys, they'll take care of their own.

Some heavyweight wiseguys have even been able to protect their sons who "went bad." I'll use a very public example, but I'm aware of at least 3 others. I'm speaking of Michael Franzese, forsaking the mob life, writing books about it, giving lectures, etc . . . And living a VERY public life. Do you really think his father (Sonny Franzese) had nothing to do with protecting him?

There are others who are more obscure, but you get the point I'm trying to make.

Thx.

I've just been working on new projects at my day job. In Michigan jobs are very hard to come by but I've managed to survive multiple cycles of layoffs. <Knock on wood>

That happened in the Fifties, but it wasn't a matter of Mafia "rules" or "honor"--it was cold-cash greed:

John Scalise had been close to Salvatore Maranzano. After Maranzano's victory in the Castellemmarese War of 1930-31, he made Scalise a caporegime--in effect the boss of what later became the Gambino family. After Charlie Luciano arranged Maranzano's murder, he removed Scalise and replaced him with Vincent Mangano. But Scalise survived as one of Mangano's capos.

Albert Anastasia got rid of Mangano in 1951. He retained Scalise. But in 1957, Anastasia found out that Scalise had been selling memberships in the Mafia for $50k each. The offense was less that he was breaking "rules," more that he wasn't sharing the proceeds with his boss, and that if he'd been permited to continue, all families would be selling memberships, which would cause a kind of human "arms race" that could have changed the balance of power in the NYC Mafia. Result: Anastasia whacked Scalise, and the Commission put a lengthy freeze on families "making" new members.

Ok ok, now I'm confused. Was the outfit a Mafia Family or just a syndacite that had primarily italian members? I mean.. Don't all traditional mafia famalies have the same hierarchy? If the OUtfit didn't, wouldn't that make it an entireley seperate organization????

I'm seriously asking I really don't know.

Look higher up in this thread at my Sept. 19 post.

Ok so if it wasn't one under Torrio and Capone was it under the other leaders then?

You guys are funny, Black made guys?

Fair question. Although the Outfit wasn't Mafia under Capone, Charlie Luciano prudently invited Capone to sit on the Commission--he even named him chairman. It was an "honorary" title. Therefore, you might make the assumption that the Outfit, as a Commission member, was considered "Mafia" as far back as 1931.
Capone kept trying to install his own guys as heads of the Unione Siciliana, which was technically the real Mafia in Chicago. He succeeded periodically. I'm guessing that the Unione was absorbed into the Outfit, and Chicago considered itself Mafia. But Chicago continued the tradition of having non-Italians in high places.

Ah ok.

So then I guess techiclly it would be possible for a black to have a high position in said outfit. But since it's not a "real" mafia family he wouldn't be called a made guy, right?

No. While the Chicago Outfit has a tradition of giving responsible positions to non-Italians,I think it's a practical matter--bringing money into the Outfit--not a matter of whether or not they're "Mafia." I also think that the same anti-black prejudice that pervades the Mafia applies to the Outfit, whether or not they call themselves "Mafia."

Another point to consider, Ludovico:

Organized crime in America today is a real "equal opportunity employer." All kinds of ethnic mobs--Asian, West Indian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnames, black mobs--are flourishing in urban areas, especially those in which the Mafia has retreated due to shifts in urban populations and assimilation of Italian-Americans. Ambitious and capable black criminals have opportunities to form or join gangs of their own, not just to look to the Mafia for employment

Oh no I know about the last point. The only reason I ever made the point of blacks in the mob was because I read something in passing that said that.

See the thing about Black organized crime is that it all kept falling apart. Nickey Barnes, Frank Lucas, The Jheri Curl Gang, Get down or lay down, etc. All these guys were active somewhere around the 60's-mid 80's.

But they mostly relied on drugs, some notable exceptions included the "black mafia" and The Blackstone Nation (under jeff fort anyway) who also did numbers running and extortion (Blackstone was espieclly known for drug running).

But everytime someone got canned or slighted another member, EVERYTHING fell apart at once.

For instance Blackstone was once an organization on par with the chicago outfit (no small accomplishment for what once was a petty street gang) but the MINUTE Fort got canned on terrorism charges (or collaborating with them w/e) the entire place fell apart.

It would seem that Black Organized crime is content to stick to the realm of dealing whatever drug makes the most money (70's= Heroine, 80's-Now= Crack) and not really haveing any large organization.

But if you really look at it they don't need to have things set in stone like their italian/irish counterparts. Their longevity lies in the fact that as long as they keep everything very fractered the police won't ever be able to actually ever get rid of them. You get rid of a major crack dealer in Chicago, another one (probably from the same bloody gang) takes his place next week. It's the leader that takes the rap, not the gang as a whole. Ok sure, the entire gang might feel the heat but who's leading is all realative. A leader doesn't even need to be canned or killed to stop being leader, it really depends on who has access to cars, guns, drugs, and of course the money. And the gang as a whole keeps running.

Which I guess might work better in some ways, after all, the crips are still around, the westies aren't.

Your point's well taken. As long as people want to indulge in illegal activities--patronize prostitutes, use drugs, buy merchandise that "fell off the back of a truck," gamble, take loans they don't qualify for--there'll always be criminal organizations to satisfy their needs.

You might also argue that RICO in general, and the Commission case in particular--dealt the Mafia a crippling body blow, amd further fragmented the families. But one difference twixt the Mafia and the Rangers, Crips, and other street-based gangs is that the Mafia at one time enjoyed tremendous political clout--and the street gangs didn't.

You never know. The Gangster Dicisples were caught more than once trying to get certain cities to pass gang-friendly legislature (albeit its a recent devolpment) The Latin Kings have been known to dabble in those things as well. And Blackstone was well known for trying to become a legitamite organization.

Mostly they failed, but it's all realtivly recent. It's scary, someday they're gonna find a nice corrupt politician and then some of them might be on the old mafia famalies political clout level. But we'll have to see how that devolps, it is known that they try to get that influence however.


Idk if RICO is what's done it alone as far as crippling the mob. If you really look at it it's law enforcment in general. We have the right idea now, back in the 1900's and all the way to the 1950's we always had the wrong plan to fight them "Let them kill themselves" "They're not a threat! Dillenger is!" all that crap. And these policies allowed the mafia to flourish and prosper. I think organized crime realy only prospers when the government lets it (either blatantly like with the yakuza in japan or mistakenly like the mafia here in the U.S.).

So yes RICO helps ALOT, but I think it's law enforcment all around thats finally given us an edge.

Ludovico, did you ever read this book? From the questions you have and the points you make I think you might enjoy it, that is if you haven't already read it.



http://www.amazon.com/Black-Brothers-Inc...3066&sr=8-1

It goes into brutal detail about a modern era Black criminal organization that spawned killers as brutal as any in Murder Inc.,had wide ranging rackets such as extortion, numbers, narcotics, loan sharking, gambling, various white collar frauds, government scams, and maintained an ongoing network of political corruption and fraud at the local and state levels. At some times this organization did business with the Bruno Family but at other times it conducted "hostile takeovers" of gambling and numbers routes previously owned by the Bruno Family.

Many of the more farsighted, less personally violent leaders that are still alive are still a force in various Philadelphia and East Coast municipal corruption and businesses such as cable contracts, waste hauling and racetracks, having either been forced out of direct street level action or having turned it over to younger and less risk averse people. One of the organization's fixers, a cleric, Shamsud-din Ali, was on Mayor Street's transition team.

Not in a million years.

The Mafia Families of yesterday had entire political machines under their control. Not to mention social, economic, law enforcement, and other factors that enabled them to become as entrenched and powerful as they did. The newer groups today don't have those same factors.

I agree, JSTony.

While politicians will always be crooked, there's not one stupid enough to get next to a known gangster in today's climate. The days of Frank Costello and Tammany Hall are long gone.

I think you're too quick to underestimate how clever criminals can be. Keep an open mind, theres still alot've time left until the world ends.

And thanks lilo, I'll defintly check that one out. The information I currently know is pieced together from books like "The new ethnic mobs" and "Gang intellegence manual" (also some friends who are uh... you know, affiliated) but that actually looks like it focuses on the black criminal element. Thanks.

Organized crime groups around the world hold considerable political influence. The Italians, the Russians, the Albanians, the Colombians, the Mexicans, etc. But the United States is a different story, as politicians are more accountable. And even if a crime group managed to gain political power in the U.S., it would likely not be a black group, as they have never been tied into the pipeline of power.

I don't know JSTony. Sure ok politicians are more accountable but there are big loopholes, even nowadays. And I honestly think the longer blacks are in american society the closer they're gonna get to it.

You could argue the same thing for the various russian, hispanic, and asian syndacites out there, but me personally? I'm always going to expect some gangster and his outfit to hold osme type of influence somewhere and some time. It's just inevitable, if it doesn't happen in my lifetime it'll happen in my child's. I think it'd be mor elikely to be a black group since out of all the other ethnicites in america, they've come the closest to getting into that pipeline.

Pizzaboy had it right when he said the days of Frank Costello are long gone. In his day, Mafia rackets tended to be fairly well hidden from the public, or considered "victimless" crimes--gambling, prostitution, labor racketeering, etc. Of course there were victims, but generally the victims were people society didn't care much about, such as blacks and Hispanics addicted by Mob-imported drugs, degenerate gamblers who were loan shark victims, crooked labor leaders "who got what was coming to them." Omerta was easier to enforce because Mob guys had to be caught in the act to be prosecuted--the bosses were well insulated, and the street guys were seldom convicted of crimes that carried big sentences.

Three big factors kicked in starting in the Sixties:

--Children of nice, white, middle class parents (including children of law enforcement, politicians, judges, etc.) began getting addicted to drugs, which woke up the cops and resulted in big sentences.
--RICO established a legal framework for prosecuting and convicting Mob bosses by linking them to criminal "conspiracies." Even victims of Mobs (such as a degenerate gambler forced to bust out his business to satisfy a debt) could be prosecuted for being part of a "racketeer influenced criminal organization." Double-digit sentences from RICO and drug convictions made a shambles of omerta.
--Italian Americans and other ethnics with ambition started going to college rather than joining Mobs. Result: the Mobs are headed by the John and Junior Gotti's of the underworld, instead of smart guys like Charlie Luciano, Frank Costello, Meyer Lansky, etc.

As for better law enforcement:

At the conclusion of his definitive "The Five Families," Selwyn Raab noted that after Rudy Giuliani showed how RICO could be used to bust the highest levels of the Mafia, federal prosecuters all over America were in a rush to do likewise in their cities--nothing succeeds like success, and there was much glory for law enforcement. But since 9/11, he added, a lot of law enforcement resources have been diverted from organized crime to terrorism.

But resources being allocated to different things can't really be helped. In the fifties there were hundreds of agents in the FBI who were assigned to root out communism but like...4 to deal with organized crime. Sure ok the focus isn't where it really needs to be (but whether or not we should focus on terrorism or OC is another argument in of inself) doesn't mean that the law enforcment isn't better.

Or...where you agreeing with me?


Also another note, omerta wasn't exclusive to mobsters, it was an italian (mainly sicilian) attitude on how one shouldn't trust the government to deal with their problems.

Did you mean to say, "were you agreeing with me?"
I believe law enforcement has far better tools to work with today. Technologically, surveillance and bugging are far better than they used to be. And RICO provided legally bulletproof standards for surveilance. But it's still a matter of the quality of individual lawmen and the commitment of time, resources--and priorities, all of which are often influenced by politics. Hoover was obsessed with the Communist Party, but it was also a time when most Americans were unaware that there was such a thing as the Mafia. After Joe Valachi's televised testimony, Hoover could no longer ignore the Mafia.

You keep throwing out one hypothesis after another that really has not basis. Out of all the organized crime groups in the U.S., La Cosa Nostra is still considered to have the most ability to corrupt political and law enforcement officials, but even their ability to do so is relatively minimal (especially compared to the old days) and their influence is confined within certain strict parameters. The Hispanic groups who control much of the drug trade in this country, the Mexicans and Colombians most of all, don't even have this. How exactly are blacks, who have always been on the lower end of the organized crime ladder, going to develop substantial political connections? Black groups, generally speaking, are involved in mid to lower level drug trafficking. They have no avenues to develop the connections you envision.

You know what this means, TB. I'm expecting a thread on Frank Costello and the Tammany Hall machine from you.

What about Leroy Nicky Barnes, Frank Lucas, Ellsworth Johnson and Stephanie St Clair?

Where do you think Barnes, Johnson, etc. got their drug supply? The Mafia was the at the top controlling the supply. Barnes, Johnson, etc. were at the mid-level, controlling wholesale operations to lower level retail distributors.

Lucas may or may not have had a direct heroin connection, at least for a time, to Southeast Asia but I don't think that's where all his supply came from if in fact he was as big as he claimed.

It varies. The narcotics business is too large for any one group to control. By the sixties and seventies there were changes in the criminal world-a sort of perverted echo of Black power. Many Black criminals no longer saw a reason why they should constantly be in a subordinate relation to the Mafia.

Still business is business. Despite his protestations of independence, Nicky Barnes relied almost exclusively on the Mafia for supply, particularly Lucchese member (associate) Matthew Madonna. Barnes tried to become completely independent but could not get enough support from his compatriots. He had to settle for cutting slightly better deals.

On the other hand both Frank Lucas (Golden Triangle) and Frank Matthews (Cubans, Turks and Colombians) had their own suppliers and were known to not be overly fond of Italians. Matthews in particular had a dislike for the Italians. Matthews still did business with them but on terms he found better for him. When threatened with violence he responded in kind and based on his rep the Mob backed off.

Matthews became a national narcotics wholesaler and went so far as to chair a 1971 Black criminal meeting in Atlanta devoted to teaching other would-be crimelords how to get independent sources of narcotics.

I'm not sure about Madame St. Clair. At the time of Dutch Schultz's death she had already lost her numbers and gambling business to the Schultz organization.

Her successor, Bumpy Johnson came to an "understanding" with the people who took over for Dutch Schultz. This would have primarily been elements of the Gagliano and Luciano Families.

Bumpy watched over the Mob's interests in Harlem, mediated any troubles and turned over a certain tribute. In return he was free to run Harlem with a minimum of interference. It was probably the best deal he could get at the time.

People who came after him didn't see the need for such deals.

By the time the eighties arrived people like Freeway Rick had setup their own suppliers, importation and distribution network and had no contact with traditional organized crime.

Blacks haven't always been on the lower end of the OC ladder, I'd provide examples but the above posters already did.

But with the political ambitions of even some of the gangs out there are starting to dabble in influence. I'm just saying it's only a matter of time. Why are so adament in beleving that the underworld won't EVER change? I think we see that it has/does constantly (usually with each decade, sometimes more time sometimes less time) and for you to say it won't ever happen is a little naive to me. I'm not saying theres historical precedent of black organzied crime groups haveing the political clout the old time mob did, but I am saying that it's gonna happen with every crime group eventually, it's only a matter of time really. Some economic factor here, some political event there, etc. I don't see why it's so hard to beleive that the organized crime scene is gonna change.

The face of organized crime in America (however disorganized it has become) has to change. As far as "full blooded" Italians remaining the driving force? That's not going to happen. Where are they going to come from?

The overwhelming majority of Italian families came here in between the years 1880 and 1920. That's a fact. Most Italian-Americans are now in their 3rd, 4th, 5th and even 6th generations in this country.

Italian-Americans have not only become one of the most upwardly mobile ethnic groups in the entire country---a fact that we should take much more pride in than emulating a bunch of fucking criminals ---the Italians here have continually married into other ethnic groups, "watering down" their blood line, and giving birth to more "American" children.

So unless they re-open Ellis Island and start shipping in poor Italian immigrants by the boatload (who are hardly as poor today as my 4 grandparents were when they came here from Southern Italy), and only let them "breed" with themselves , then where is this "new blood" going to come from?

It's only natural that the other, more recently arrived ethnic groups, take to running the streets. They'll never be as powerful as the Italian mob was 50 or 60 years ago, not for lack of ambition or ruthlessness, but for many of the reasons that Turnbull, Lilo and some of our other more well informed members have already posted (RICO, eavesdropping technology, etc...).

I agree with that, my only difference is that I'm expecting some type of Sh** to hit some type of fan and when that happens we could see a big change in the way things are being run.

I'm not saying it's likely to happen in the near future, I'm just saying I'm preparing myself to not be surprised if it does happen. I fully realize you just can't get to the level the early mobs did... here in america at least.

The drug business is too large for one group to control now. It was a different story when the Mafia had a virtual monopoly on the heroin business for a half century, from the 1930's to the 1980's. And I'm talking about control of the supply of upper wholesale level. Similar to what Mexican drug trafficking groups have now throughout the country except in the Northeast and South Florida.

As I said before, black groups have been primarily involved in mid-to-lower level drug trafficking. Whether it was Barnes getting his supply from the Italians or Matthews getting his from other groups, they were at the mid-level. They didn't control importation. As for Frank Lucas, there has been a lot of debate about how factual his connections were to Southeast Asia, as well as how significant they were if they did in fact exist.

Like I said before, black groups have been primarily invoved in mid-to-lower drug trafficking. Barnes, Matthews, and some others were at the mid-level. They certainly weren't at the bottom but they weren't at the top either. Whether Lucas was is debatable.

I never said the underworld won't change. It changes year to year, decade to decade. I said that organized crime groups in the U.S. no longer have the political influence once enjoyed by the Mafia in past decades or by other crime groups in other countries. And even if that were to change for some unforseen reason, it probably would not be a black group.

What you're saying is largely true. It's called general attrition and has been a bigger catalyst of the demise of Mafia Families in the U.S. than all the indictments and turncoats combined. It is why the remaining Families are anywhere from 50% to 10% of their peak sizes in the 1950's and 1960's.

That said, the effect of this general attrition varies from region to region, city to city. In the areas that have always been the Mafia's main powerbase, it is natuarally much slower. Families like Dallas and Denver are gone. Others like Los Angeles and Tampa are nearly so. But others like Chicago, New England, and Philadelphia are still there. And the five New York Families will be around for a long time to come.

Actually the Mafia dominance in heroin started to slip in the late sixties and early seventies, not the eighties. They were still big players-just not the only game in town.

I gotta disagree that Matthews and Lucas were midlevel. Barnes was; they weren't. They supplied many other black and Hispanic syndicates. This is discussed in great detail in "Gangsters of Harlem", "Easy Money", and "Black Brothers Inc."

Even today although the Mexicans are the predominant suppliers there are still plenty of other people who import and deal independently of them. The Nigerians are huge in Chicago and New York. The Cubans have their own thing going on, as do the Colombians. It's quite a melange out there.

Before the fall of the Pizza Connection, the trans-Atlantic operation between the Sicilian and American Mafias was estimated to be responsible for 80% of the heroin to New York, as well as the U.S. in general. That was down from 95% in the 1950's but the Mafia still dominated the trade. From the mid-1980's to the mid-1990's, the Chinese controlled the heroin trade. But then the Colombians started refining their own high grade heroin, and later the Mexicans as well, and they eventually replaced the Chinese.

Unless you are the group actually bringing the drugs into the country (i.e. the top of the drug chain) you are somewhere at the mid-level, which Barnes and Matthews were. They got their supply from somebody else so they weren't technically at the top. Once again, whether Lucas had his own direct connection is debatable.

Read the 2008 DEA Threat Assessment (link below). Mexican groups are now the dominant suppliers, controlling most of the drug trade at the smuggling and upper wholesale level, in every area of the U.S. except for the Northeast and South Florida. In those two areas, Colombians are still the main suppliers.

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/18862/index.htm

Wait wait, don't most sophisticated drug syndacites smuggle the drugs in themselves? Or at least halfway? I don't really think that we can truely count the suppliers themselves as the top of the drug chain, I say it is instead the wholesale distributors, because without them the suppliers would simply be out of business and its not always the suppliers getting the drugs into the country by themelves.

The American Mafia smuggled narcotics in itself. Later on it was the Sicilian Mafia who smuggled the drugs in and either distributed on it's own (while paying the LCN a tax) or turning the drugs over to LCN middle-men. Later on, when the Chinese took over the heroin business for about a decade, they smuggled the drugs in. The Colombian and Mexican groups now are the dominant smugglers and most other groups get their supply either directly from them or somewhere down the chain. If you control the supply and upper wholesale level of the drug trade, you're at the top. Everyone else is dependant on you. There are many mid-level sophisticated drug groups in the U.S. but they don't smuggle the drugs in themselves. Another good example of a group at the top is the Rizzuto organization in Montreal, which smuggles narcotics into that region.