Latinos in Corona

Ricourt and Dante’s Introduction: The Emergence of Latino Panethnicity talked about the population of latinos in Corona, as well as the change in population of other parts of the borough of Queens.  They started off by discussing the sense of unity Latinos of Corona found in their common language.  This was the first thing that stood out to me about this passage.  I found it interesting language was the most unifying factor of the Hispanic population.  It did make the most sense to me, though, because as different as various Hispanic cultures are, the language is the one thing that they have in common.  That is the one thing that they can depend on to communicate and connect with each other.  Since Spanish is what attracts Latinos to Corona, it makes it easier for more and more Hispanics to feel comfortable living in the area, interacting, and creating a community of their own.

As a child, I spent a lot of time in Corona and I remember looking around and thinking that my family was “the outsider” in this area.  Reading this passage made it seem like it was in fact the other way around, at least at one point.  Ricourt and Dante explain the growth of Latinos in Corona and how it was a result of “new immigration.”  However, before this Corona’s population was predominantly white and black.  Soon, more blacks would move into the area and whites would move out.  By the 1990’s, the area became multi-Latino.  Although the area became predominantly Hispanic, there were people moving in from various spanish countries, from Puerto Rico to Panama.  All of these cultures mixed into one area can be hard to believe.  There are bound to be separations and divisions, but as a whole, Latinos have made Corona their home.

A Different Jackson Heights

Reading the essay about the development of Jackson Heights, Queens, I realized that no matter how hard one tries, one cannot always control the outcome of a neighborhood. There are too many outside factors that make this control difficult. MacDougall lost in his fight to create an upper middle class to upper class exclusive neighborhood, Jackson Heights. Building the neighborhood in a great economy, he banned certain groups of people, such as Jews and Blacks, from moving to Jackson Heights, but when the Great Depression hit, this all changed. People could no longer afford these homes, so some people moved out, and prices of all the homes dropped. The Great Depression did set up Jackson Heights for its new dynamic of being a diverse neighborhood, but it was not until decades after the Great Depression that immigrants, other than Jews or Catholics, moved to Jackson Heights. The outside factors were the introducing of two new acts that made opened the door for immigrants to come to the United States. Since Jackson Heights’ real estate market was still bad when these acts were put in place, Jackson Heights was the perfect place for immigrants to settle.

The essay describes Jackson Heights, specifically Roosevelt Avenue, as a place full of life. Every block has stores representing a different nationality. What became of Jackson Heights seems better than MacDougall’s original dream of creating a citadel-like neighborhood composed of only wealthy whites. The Jackson Heights that was created seems much more interesting and attractive. It is so attractive that people come from other states to shop in the area, similar to how people go to Flushing to do their shopping.

The topic of controlling who inhabits an area is intriguing to me because in my town that issue has recently been coming up. A developer wants to build new apartments in my town, but people are afraid that kids are going to settle there, and the schools are already crowded. The developer can try to make the apartments as unattractive to families with kids as it wants, but as we saw with MacDougall’s efforts to control, outside factors can change everything.

Miyares – Changes in Jackson Heights

“From Exclusionary Covenant to Ethnic Hyperdiversity in Jackson Heights, Queens” by Ines M. Miyares mainly focused on Jackson Heights to demonstrate the dramatic change in its ethnic population from the past few decades. Jackson Heights was not meant to be diverse. It was supposed to be the getaway for high earning working people from the New York City. The houses were grand and the neighborhood was clean.

However, the stock market crash in 1929 and the stagnation of real estate 1930s became the spark to the change of Jackson Heights from a rich white town into a town of hyperdiversity. Because of these economical problems, apartments were very hard to sell. In 1950s, finally a new group of people started moving into Jackson heights. These groups of people were Latin Americans who had entrepreneurial experience and were in need to establish a stable business. Because these Latinos were experienced and educated, it was common for them to settle down in Jackson Heights’ “discounted” apartments (thanks to stock market crash).

However, even as late as 1970s, Jackson heights was called “a largely white, middle-class neighborhood”. So what factor impacted the diversity of Jackson Heights the most? The Immigration Reform Act of 1965 removed the quotas on immigrants and made immigration more advantageous. This new wave of immigrants was highly educated and they settled in neighborhoods with large and affordable housings, easily accessible public transportation, and available storefronts for new businesses (and Jackson Heights was a perfect match for Hispanic/Latino and Asian population). As shown in the article’s chart, in 2000, 63% of Jackson Heights’ residents were foreigners. It really is ironic to actually think that Jackson Heights was supposed to be for white rich Europeans. Coincidently, the conditions in Jackson Heights were perfect for the immigrants and this coincidence made Jackson Heights one of the most diverse city in the world.

Ricourt & Dant

Milagros Ricourt and Ruby Dante heavily focused on Corona in Introduction: The Emergence of Latino Panethnicity. The authors discussed that while Corona is now predominately filled with Latin American immigrants, it wasn’t always that way. Dating back to the 1950s, Corona was made up of almost 43,000 whites and 5,000 blacks. Each year, the number of whites drastically decreased while blacks increased (up until Latin Americans began to migrate to Corona, which at that time the number of blacks then decreased.) White flight clearly impacted the Corona neighborhood and molded it into the predominately Latino neighborhood it is today. But while Corona is majority Latino, there is no specific group of Latinos that dominate the area. Between Dominicans, Columbians, Puerto Ricans, Ecuadorians, Cubans, Mexicans, Peruvians, Salvadorians, Hondurans and Panamanians, not any of these ethnicities have an absolute majority. While there isn’t a perfect divide between the groups, each group has their own nook in the community.

While I was reading Introducing Corona, I was very intrigued reading the schedule that was laid out. There was a strong image of people from all different countries of the world standing on the same platform, waiting for the same 7 train. All of these people had their own stories, backgrounds and beliefs but in that moment, all of them had the same goal: to get to on the train and head into Manhattan for work. Reading this passage gave me an almost empty feeling because thinking that there are people who take the same trains for years, that will never actually interact. While they may see and recognize one another, they see that they are not the same ethnicity and therefore do not engage with each other. It is the same as the mothers who go and pick up their kids from school. While they wait with the same individuals everyday, the Latin Americans, Indians and Chinese women all stand separately. The divide between races go beyond the mother countries and translates even in Queens, New York.

 

Jones-Correa on Community

Michael Jones-Correa opens his book, Between Two Nations: The Political Predicament of Latinos in New York City, with a chapter entitled, “Intimate Strangers: Immigration to Queens.” Right off the bat, the title introduces an interesting idea that Jones-Correa further develops. This notion of an “intimate stranger,” a paradoxical sentiment, lends itself to what Jones-Correa coins as “communities overlapping but not touching.” However, before he addresses that, he gives the historical and sociological context of this community shift.

According to his premise, the idea of a community being bound by arbitrarily drawn lines is one that can be debated, particularly with regards to Latino immigrants. Queens, having originally been farmland, is a relatively new place to live, in the grand scheme on New York City. Emphasis on the word live, because that is exactly what people in Queens do. This is not an area for tourists or people to simply pass through, but rather a place for people to carry out their daily lives. Therefore, much more emphasis is placed on this idea of a community.

Jones-Correa refers to the white population of these Queens neighborhoods as “white ethnic residents,” accrediting the fact that they were once too immigrants. However, they do not identify with recent immigrants. Jones-Correa introduces the concept of assimilation, without actually saying the word. He quotes a person saying he never spoke Italian to his friends, despite living in an Italian neighborhood as a child. This contrasts the American-born Latinos who still converse in Spanish with their peers. This thereby lends itself to the idea that perhaps, if Latino immigrants more consciously tried to “blend in” and abide by the social rules put in place by the community’s original residents, there would be no problems.

However, this often isn’t the case, bringing back the idea of an “intimate stranger.” The idea of “communities overlapping but not touching” refers to the reality of an “overlap,” in the sharing of a space, without “touching,” the interaction of the inhabitants. Jones-Correa addresses this in his opening, painting a picture of the 7 train as full of people, but still being a solitary endeavor. Therefore, the question is raised of 1) whether or not asking these people to assimilate is ethnocentric, and 2) how can we integrate these various enclaves, so to speak, into a single thriving community?

Latino Urbanism….The Disappearance of an “Immigrant”

Coming to America, immigrants are immigrants, new to the land and to the American culture. However, when they settle in, they settle mostly in a community that consists more of them and more of their religion and their identity. Therefore, their “immigrant” label diminishes due to the fact that they basically integrate with the people around them. However, the continued interaction among each other as well as social events, they create their own identity. Throughout Dante’s piece, we see the factors that play a role in leaning immigrants to join with their “own” and become their own identity with them. Initially, there weren’t as many Latinos in the Corona but those factors and time greatly influenced the transformation of the background of the community. One factor was White flight that was effective in the transformation in which the number of blacks decreased.

As a son of Indian immigrants, I can compare what Dante says to my own parents. The initial action to reside is somewhere comfortable where you know the people and the culture so they don’t feel the “social force” acting upon them. Not only, but the nature of the growth of population also impacts the emergence of the Latino community. From two states to all 50 states, the population of Latino communities have increased, and within each city they gradually get higher.This article explains much of the demographics of the emergence of Latino Communities as well as that of Corona. With 44% being Latinos, it has been divided into three subareas, North Corona, Corona Plaza, and Corona Heights. Much of the emergence of Lationos has come about from social issues and the interaction with people surrounding them. That is what creates unity as well as a form of identity for themselves. Even though they all come from different nations and parts of the world, they become a group when they surround themselves with their own.

The Transformation of Jackson Heights

If you told Edward Archibald MacDougall that one day the neighborhood he founded and created, Jackson Heights, would someday be one of the most diverse places in the United States, he wouldn’t believe you. The intention of MacDougall was to create a neighborhood meant for rich white Protestants, one that would primarily exclude blacks, Jews, and Irish Catholics. It’s position offered middle to upper class Protestant whites to easily commute to Midtown Manhattan without having to live in the crowded confides of Manhattan. However, by the year 2000, the number of Hispanics residents outnumbered the number of white residents while the Asian population also began to quickly rise. What is the reason for this sudden change in the demographics in Jackson Heights? Ines Miyares outlines the main reasons for these changes as follows: the 1929 stock market crash, the subsequent real estate market collapse, or the change in immigration policies and patterns after the 1950s.

From its creation, Jackson Heights was a neighborhood filled with large apartments, in the forms of the Greystones, the Chateau apartments, and the Towers. When the Upper-Middle Class white Protestants began moving out of Jackson Heights due to the reasons listed above, the most logical group to move in were those of Hispanic origin. The large apartments were the perfect size to accommodate the large families of Hispanic groups including the Colombians and Cubans, two groups who have brought entrepreneurial experience and the capital needed to establish businesses. This was an unexpected turn of events given the way Jackson Heights was formed in the first place. Interestingly enough, in the year 2000 the number of foreign-born residents accounted for nearly 63 percent of it’s residents, compared to the 32 percent for the other four boroughs of New York City. Jackson Heights has an interesting history in regards to the fact that it started as mostly white Protestant Citadel and has transformed into a highly diverse area for New York City immigrants.

Coexistence

In “Immigration to Queens” the author Michael Jones-Correa discusses the concept of community and how it can be distinguished from other areas. From what I can tell, the author believes that immigrants and older residents live in separate communities because of cultural differences. He generalizes the older residents as “white ethnics” and describes their reaction to the influx of new immigrants in a largely negative light. His conclusion in this reading leaves me with the impression that the immigrants and “white ethnics” lead completely separate lives with rare overlaps and interactions because of the “white ethnics” unwillingness to accept the culture and language of the immigrants.

However, the writings of Ines Miyares, Milgaros Ricourt and Ruby Danto describe the lives of older residents and new immigrants overlapping and coexisting. This is a perspective I more strongly agree with. Though they do explain how within the neighborhood, even amongst immigrants, there is a sense of separation and aloofness from other ethnicities and groups. But it is not as extreme as how Jones-Correa describes it. In Miyares’ writing, she describes this overlapping seen in Churches and organizations in Jackson Heights that provide translations in various languages because of the many ethnicities that utilize these institutions. In the writings by Ricourt and Danto, they describe the conflicts between long-time Italian residents and the more recent Hispanic immigrants. Though these are conflicts, the fact that there are interracial conflicts demonstrates how the supposedly separate communities and people do in fact overlap with each other.

I believe that though the lives of new immigrants and long-time residents may differ, they are not completely separate. They coexist surprisingly well despite having drastically different cultures and values. The tendency for people who share similar values or cultures to congregate is natural, but they do not completely detach themselves from others.

Intimate Strangers

“Intimate Strangers: Immigration to Queens” discusses a fascinating and puzzling paradox: while the borough of Queens is home to one of the most diverse immigrant population in the world, people rarely encounter and deal with a diversity of people within their personal lives. In other words, while a wide diversity of people occupy each other’s physical space, they do not occupy each other’s social space. The authors, Jones and Correa address immediately categorize this paradox as both widespread . In my opinion, this label is at best incomplete and at worst incorrect.

First off, both as a life long Queens resident and an objective reader, I can’t help but completely disagree with the authors’ assertion that the different ethnic populations of Queens do not interact with each other. The main problem with this argument is that the authors conflate geographical proximity with social proximity. They say that because ethnic groups live in distinct areas they do not interact socially with other ethnic groups. This idea is logically flawed. People’s social lives do not have to center around their homes, especially in an ever shrinking and technological world. Just because a person might live in a predominantly Afro-Caribbean area that does not mean that all the people they encounter in their workplace and social zones are Afro-Caribbean. Choice of residence can reflect a variety of cultural factors: dietary restrictions/ preferences, access to religious institutions, etc., but place of residence is by no means a fool proof indicator of the diversity of one’s social connections and preferences. Can geographic proximity predict social proximity? Possibly yes. But in this paper the authors do not make sufficient efforts  to clarify the connection between residence and social ties.

I do, however, find the authors proposal to initiate inter ethnic group contact and community involvement very interesting and effective. While at first it seemed strange that a groups  of strangers should be compelled to get to know each other seemed strange, it makes sense. The city is a big place, and its definitely possible to lose oneself within a small and limited group. The beauty of cities is that they connect not just people, but peoples ideas. If we want our city to succeed we need to create a nurturing environment for intellectual cross fertilization, and this starts by connecting people with one another.

“Intimate strangers: immigration to Queens”

For me, it is difficult to describe New York City is few words because there are just so many various characteristics that distinguish New York City from other major cities in the United States. In the first paragraph of the “Intimate Strangers: Immigration to Queens”, the authors use the elevated number 7 train to paint a picture of how diverse New York City actually is. I have taken the 7 trains multiple times but I never thought that the ride from Times Square to Flushing could actually depict the city as if it were “in transition”. The article notes such interesting details about a mere train route. From times square (a major commercial district), the 7 train goes through Northwestern Queens (the home to a large Central American, South American and Asian populations) and it finally ends in Flushing (a thriving immigrant enclave).

The article also points out that despite a decline in factory jobs (contributing to an increase in unemployment rate), the rate of immigration into NYC still increased because many immigrants were “swept” into low skilled labor. This influx of immigrants contributed to “white flight” and does not only occur when Latinos moved into Jackson Heights. As we have seen before, an increase in Asian immigration in Flushing also contributed greatly to the “white flight” in the region, thus proving that “white flight” generally occurs whenever minorities establish a significant foothold in a neighborhood.

Also, the conflict between the white residents and immigrants (in general) is not fairly new either. This brings up the question: should immigrants try harder to assimilate or should the native residents be accepting of the immigrants’ ways? In the article, the white residents of Jackson Heights associated large immigrant populations with increased in criminal activity and an increased detachment from their original community/neighborhood. Many white residents want these immigrants to behave in an “acceptable” manner, although different groups may consider different things to be acceptable. For example, the article states that the playing of loud music is common in Latino culture however, to white residents, this is not “acceptable”. This continuous tug of war between immigrants and native residents still continues today, as various ethnic groups are moving into largely white neighborhoods, thereby changing the racial and cultural demographics of the area. In the end of the article, the authors consider the lifestyles of the Latino and White residents to be to be “parallel” to one another even though they all share the same spatial area. Although there is some disagreement between the groups due to their differences, it is still very remarkable to see how these communities coexist in a relatively peaceful manner  and contribute to the Jackson Heights’ diversity.

Urbanismo Latino

In Introduction: The Emergence of Latino Panthecity the authors Milagros Ricourt and Ruby Dante discuss the various factors that encourage Latinos to unite under a common identity. The authors state that one of primary reasons that leads to Latino panathecity is the sharing of a common culture and language, a characteristic that sets Latin Americans apart from other ethnic groups.

Being a Latin American woman myself, I can relate to this article. One of the things that I find most fascinating about my ethnicity is the ability to relate to so many other Hispanics, even Hispanics that are not from my country. Sure, each Hispanic carries ties to their own country, a sense of pride that they carry within themselves, an urge to represent their country here in the United States. A tie to their country that the reading calls “trasnationalism”. However, each of us still carries that separate identity of being Costa Rican or Colombian or Dominican etc. and Latin American.  I often feel that this is overlooked by some people. While each of us speaks the same language and has faced similar types of discimination in the past, we each come from countries that have different slang, different politics, different accents and different histories.

However, despite this pride that we have of our country we each still share what the reading calls “simpatia”, a recognition of ourselves in others. I feel that this “simpatia” is made even stronger in here in America. For example, I know for a fact that in Costa Rica if a Costa Rican were to meet a Colombian immigrant for example, that same “joy” of meeting someone Hispanic will not be as present. On the other hand, in the United States, with its great diversity, meeting another Hispanic from a different country would instantly provide a feeling of bonding. Even if the Hispanic is from another country, we know that in this sea of so many people of different cultures, this Hispanic has a culture that is very similar to ours.

         Coincidentally before writing my Latino Urbanism paper, I was watching an annual music award show on tv called “Premio Lo Nuestro”. While watching this award show, I was thinking how amazing it is that in the audience of the show, and among all the Hispanic celebrities, there were people from completely distinct countries. However, they were all united to celebrate one common thing: how far the Latin American music has managed to make an impact in the United States. However, I feel that Hispanics still have a lot of work to do to overcome the various stereotypes that people place on them. The stereotypes that Hispanics will always work at low-paying jobs, never actually progressing and obtaining higher degrees of education. To be honest, I feel that some of these beliefs are right. While there are the occasional Hispanics that rise above these limitations, the majority are far behind and something must be done about this issue. Sure there are some factors that prevent Hispanics from progressing, factors such as the economy that are not under their control. But when it comes to making the effort to assimilate into the country and learn the language, as well making the effort to teach their children the importance of an education and performing well academically, those are factors that are completely in control of the Hispanic individual. I believe that the government should so what they can to help Hispanics succeed in the United States but I also believe that Hispanics should take advantage of all the opportunities they have before them.

Furthermore in the reading Intimate Strangers: Immigration to Queens by Michael Jones-Correa, the author elaborates on many of the issues the prevents the integration of Hispanics and people of other cultures, mainly Europeans. The authors states that that Hispanics and Whites have differing perception of what comprises a community. To Hispanics, a community is in their memory, a shared sense of home that is combines elements of their homeland and their new neighborhoods in America. To a European, a community is based on physical borders such as streets or familiar landmarks in the neighborhood. An issues that stems from this discrepancy in perceptions is the tendency of Whites to push Hispanics to the “margins” of the neighborhood, and thereafter avoiding those borders because of the association they have of Hispanics with violence, drugs and prostitution. Eventually, many of these Whites decide to leave these communities to live in places that have a lower concentration of Hispanics. It is vital to research these issues today in order to understand not only the future demography of our city but also to  facilitate Latinos in integrating into our communities and society so they can benefit themselves and our country.

La communidad latina de Queens

Latinos, as well as Asians, are an increasing population in New York City. Many of these new and recent immigrants have been settling in Queens and Brooklyn, with a few exceptions in Washington Heights and lower Manhattan. Most notably, the Latino community has been growing rapidly in Corona and in Jackson Heights. Unlike the immigrants before them, who had filled manufacturing jobs and other blue-collar jobs, these immigrants are taking jobs that are primarily “low-skilled…low paying…” (Jones-Correa 19)

Based on some of the former readings, there is an understanding that most of New York City was originally white; this population has reportedly been on the decline as more minorities are moving in and settling in white neighborhoods. Amongst this immigrant wave are Latinos. For this week, the readings focused on Corona and Jackson Heights. Here is where two articles disagree with one another; whereas Miyares states that Jackson Heights has been increasingly diverse, Jones-Correa states that there is a strong Latino community there. Either way, the growing numbers contribute to Queens’ diversity.

As previously proven with the influx of Chinese immigrants who settled in previously suburban Flushing, white residents will only go so far to tolerate new immigrants. Likewise, there was also a backlash against immigrants moving to Corona and Jackson Heights. In one situation, a neighbor complained that the Latinos didn’t speak English. “They never consider this their home…these kids, they are talking…in Spanish and they were born here.” (Jones-Correa 27-28) This has been a reoccurring theme in the articles and in class: immigrants who refuse to learn and speak English. In another article by Ricourt & Dante, a particular situation had a group of young Italians in Corona use violence against the Latinos.

What seems to be the issue that affects both the Chinese and Latino community is that they are simply not “good guests.” This goes back to the metaphor used in Jones-Correa’s article. The initial residents (hosts) will allow foreigners (guests) into their midsts, because they believe that the guests have had a hard life before their arrival. Yet, the hosts will expect that the guests will learn the rules and toe the line. Immigrants in the 19th and early 20th century struggled to adapt to their new homes: willingly dropping their last names to new “American ones” and forsaking their cultures to become an “American.” That does not seem to be the case for these new immigrants, who instead of “assimilating,” (as that word is so often thrown around) choose to live in enclaves with people who are similar to them in ethnicity and culture and do not live by the rules. These immigrants, therefore, ignore the rules. As a result, they must “pay the price.”

The Transformation of a Neighborhood: Jackson Heights

Miyares’ “From Exclusionary Covenant to Ethnic Hyperdiversity in Jackson Heights, Queens” chronicles the transformation of Jackson Heights from its pre-Great Depression days to the place it is today. Originally, the area was intended for an elite, white suburban community for the upper-middle and middle class. Even the name “Heights” promoted it as a place that exuded prestige and that had an elevated ambience as Edward MacDougall envisioned. It was initially the “first garden apartment community,” characterized by its private gardens; its financial plan of the co-op was reminiscent of the more upscale co-ops on Fifth Avenue. Despite MacDougall’s clear vision, Jackson Heights soon transformed in a way that he would never have expected. It became clear that what happened was completely out of his control and there could have been no way for him to determine Jackson Heights’ future.

The metamorphosis from being a homogenous, upper crust neighborhood to a diverse, bustling one resulted from the Stock Crash in 1929. The people could no longer afford to live there, and consequently vacancies and price cuts ensued. Those living arrangement changes, combined with eased immigration restriction policies and the availability of transportation, resulted in an influx of new dwellers in this particular area. Large multi story apartments and two story row homes, originally intended for the wealthy were subsequently divided, yet were still spacious enough for the new households. The leisurely aspect soon disappeared as the heterogeneous population took over.

As a result of the deluge of immigrants, Jackson Heights became marked by its immense diversity. Queens has the highest percentage of diversity out of all the New York boroughs, but there is an even higher percentage specifically within the area of Jackson Heights. Other areas experienced ethnic and racial change as a result of waves of immigrants, but only Jackson Heights maintained the distinction of being the only hyperdiverse neighborhood with no dominant cultural group or language.

The part of Jackson Heights that epitomizes the neighborhood’s essence is Roosevelt Avenue. Having never been to Jackson Heights, I can only imagine this place; I imagine that it is a microcosm of the world, a small land segment in which all cultures are represented. The shops are, among others, Indian, Korean and Latino. I find it ironic that a place that was intended to be exclusive now bursts at the seams with cultural diversity.

An important point the author wishes to make is that it is beyond the control of any human to determine what the future of a place will be. MacDougall envisioned Jackson Heights as a suburban neighborhood for the wealthier whites, but evolution uprooted this plan in favor of enabling it to become a place that welcomes all different immigrants.

Intimate Strangers: Northwestern Queens 15 Years Later

Michael Jones-Correa published “Intimate Strangers: Immigration to Queens” in his book Between Two Nations: The Political Predicament of Latinos in New York City in 1998, but today you can still note many of the same truths that he wrote about 15 years ago. Northwestern Queens still attracts thousands of new immigrants every year from all over the world, especially Asians and Hispanics. His opening description of people on the 7 train sounds like it could have been written yesterday.

In my hometown, Elmhurst, I see the same pattern of immigrants on top of immigrants on top of immigrants. On my block alone, that I know of, there are people of Irish, Chinese, Korean, Argentinian, Italian, Ecuadorian, Mexican, African-American, Polish, Filipino, and Japanese heritage. I listen as all of these people work to learn English, and I watch as their children become more and more a part of a world that they will never fully belong to. I have all of these neighbors, all of us so close to one another, but our neighborhood is pretty much the only thing that we all share. This raises the question: how truthful is the geographic idea of a community?

Jones-Correa offers two opposing views of what “community” means by focusing on Jackson Heights. To the older white residents, who he calls “white ethnics,” communities are well-defined areas enclosed by recognized borders. They assign certain characteristics and values to each neighborhood.

To Hispanic immigrants, community refers to the social community shared between them. Even though they come from different countries, they bond through their shared language and experiences. To them, the borders between neighborhoods are not so important.

Jones-Correa cites Roosevelt Ave. as a recognized border between Jackson Heights and Elmhurst. This street, which runs under the 7 line, is a highly concentrated strip of Hispanic stores and restaurants. He writes that the entire reason that this street developed the way it did was because the white ethnics pushed the new immigrants to the edges of town, and they avoided it because they associated it with crime.

Since then, Roosevelt Ave. has commercialized somewhat, and is not regarded as being so “dirty” as it used to be. It is still a main street in the area for Hispanics merchants and businesses. The concentration of Hispanics along this street eventually pushed into the rest of Elmhurst and Jackson Heights as more and more white people left. In Jackson Heights, they now make up the plurality of the population.

The year after Jones-Correa’s book was published, a section of Jackson Heights was granted historical status. In this chapter, he wrote about how it was an attempt for the whites to hold onto some power over land usage. The next year, they succeeded. How successful was this move, however? Though the buildings granted historical status are typically controlled by whites, Hispanics have moved further into all other parts of the neighborhood and their numbers are still on the rise.

Overall, I believe that some of the tension between the white ethnics and Hispanics has calmed. It may either be that there are too few whites left to protest, or that they recognize that they are outnumbered, but within the past 15 years, the Hispanic push into Jackson Heights has been relentless and mostly uncontested. This has been true of the region for several decades now, and the dynamics we see in these neighborhoods are changing everyday. At the same time, we can recognize this as the normal story of Queens, the immigrant’s landing spot. Some things just don’t change.

What is Community?

Michael Jones-Correa’s “Intimate Strangers: Immigration to Queens,” discusses the dichotomy between white ethnics and Latin Americans in Jackson Heights, Queens. Jones-Correra makes several points differentiating the mentalities and following actions of the disparate groups, but one specific point took hold of my attention: the idea of “community.”

The white ethics of Jackson Heights viewed community as a “neighborhood..with its boundaries…that are forever fixed, even as they feel ‘their’ neighborhoods changing.” The inhabitants of a true community personally know each other and interact on a regular basis. Further, the white ethics of Jackson Heights view community as an enclosure of space; they regard the “physical structure of the neighborhood…as the community.”

Latin-Americans, on the contrary, hold a different view of what a community encompasses. Jones-Correa uses the term “geography of memory” to explain the Latino’s relationship with the space in which they reside. It is almost as if Latin Americans have dual identities; one part of their identity resides in the community of their home countries, while another resides in the U.S. Simultaneously, it is their memory of the geography back home that shapes their experience of community in the U.S. Therefore, the identity of the Latin American is not inextricably linked to tangible space.

The two different definitions of “community” set out by the white ethics and Latin Americans of Jackson Heights prompted me to think about my own community, and, more specifically, my family. My parents are both immigrants, my mother from Guyana and my father from Turkey. We reside in College Point, Queens, which is not similar to Jackson Heights in terms of Latin American ethnic concentration. College Point, in the past few years, has increasingly become populated with Asian Americans, so my family is an outlier of sorts in the community in which we have lived in for nearly twenty years. Personally, I can relate to the Latin-American’s view of “community.” My parents have brought with them, from their home countries, ideas of their own communities. We cook food from both cultures, and shop at grocery stores that carry our specific brand of Chai   tea that isn’t available in any of the mainstream American grocery stores, or the recently opened Korean Supermarket that’s a five minute drive away. My family’s sense of community lies largely in where our culture is–be it Richmond Hill or Astoria; it is in these two areas that Guyanese and Turkish culture are largely concentrated in. Simply residing in an area (geography) does not create a sense of community, especially if there are not people of similar descent nearby. “Community,” to me, is where one’s culture is.

Assimilation

Last class we discussed the affects living in ethnic enclaves can have on people, in terms of how they affect people’s ability to be a part of the mainstream United States. At first, when I started reading “Chinese: Divergent Destinies in Immigrant New York”, I was convinced that enclaves were the roads to living in places outside of the enclaves. When Zhou discussed the Old Chinatown, she said that most second-generation Chinese immigrants move out of Old Chinatown, and this is supported by the fact that Old Chinatown contains mostly new immigrants and elderly people. I took this to mean that they moved out of Chinatowns in general, but really they just move into another Chinese enclave, Sunset Park.  As a result, Zhou calls Sunset Park an extension of Chinatown. In reality, according to Zhou, many people are stuck in the enclaves, if they work in the enclave economy, since they are not exposed to English and since many are undocumented.

The Old Chinatown in the past has even made efforts to protect Chinese immigrants from outside society, and this seems to go against the idea of immigrating to the United States. For example, associations called tongs were made to “preserve the status quo” in the enclave. Immigrants cannot become comfortable with society if their status quo is intentionally being preserved. Now, however, these organizations do promote integration into society and provide English classes. They still do not focus on English though, as the organizations like the CCBA focus their schooling on Chinese language classes.  Shouldn’t the focus be English?

I am slightly confused on the meaning of suburb after reading Zhou’s and Li’s article. Li calls places like Flushing and Sunset Park, ethnoburbs, and makes it clear that he believes that they are very different from Chinatowns. Li describes ethnoburbs, as if they are places for wealthy immigrants. This makes sense if Li is talking about how ethnoburbs, such as Flushing formed, as it formed from well off Taiwanese settling there, since they did not fit in with the Cantonese in Chinatown. They were followed by the mainland Chinese. Now however, Zhou says that many people who come to Flushing are working class coming to meet their middle class relatives. This does not sound like a suburb Li that Li talks about.

 

Response to Li’s “Beyond Chinatown”

Li’s “Beyond Chinatown, beyond enclave: Reconceptualizing contemporary Chinese settlements in the United States” focuses on Chinese immigrations and the changes it’s been going through throughout the history. First, I wondered why different ethnic groups form communities to almost shut themselves out from the mainstream society. Then I realized, being an immigrant myself, I was significantly more comfortable around the people from my country. In the early immigration era, prejudice caused these Chinese to seek comfort from the people of their own kind, which resulted in Chinatown.

One of the most interesting points in this article is that Li mentions Chinatown and immigration pattern is changing. He lists six stages of “Chinese settlement patterns and community forms”. From the stage-to-stage, Chinese immigration’s expansion and evolution were significant. A stunning fact is that a war actually benefited these immigrants significantly. The World War II essentially became the stepping-stone for them. Chinese started to move out of their safe haven and settle in suburban areas.

Li also mentions that later Chinese immigrants are more educated, well trained, and have higher status than previous immigrants. I thought the example of monster house was hysterical in certain ways. Previously, immigrants had to adapt to the already existing society, forming their own town to seek comfort and opportunities. As mentioned in the article, now the residents have to adapt to the foreign immigrants at some point. In the past people would have dreamed for an issue like monster house to come up. It just shows how dominant Chinese immigrants have become in this society.

Prejudice against Asian immigrants is still present in the current society. I’ve seen numerous adults doing business in Asian enclave, not learning English nor interacting with the mainstream society. In my opinion, no matter how globalized the world is, there always will be some sort of tension between races. Clash of different cultures have led to racism and segregation – problems with immigrants will not go away easily.

Chinese Immigrants Establishing a Place for Themselves in America

The readings on immigrant enclaves focused solely on predominantly Asian enclaves. They provided a brief history on traditional Chinatowns and Chinese immigration.

Chinese immigration began noticeably during the 19th century when they came from overseas looking to work in mines and railroad construction sites. They were originally poor laborers of minimum education and skills. The Chinese Exclusion Act successfully lowered the number of Chinese immigrating to the U.S. and faced with discrimination and violence, the Chinese congregated in urban areas, forming so-called Chinatown enclaves in large cities such as San Francisco and New York City. Chinatown provided protection from racism and the means of survival for the Chinese. In exchange, however, they secluded themselves from the rest of the city. The large influx of Chinese immigrants didn’t really occur until after the 1960s when legislations preventing Chinese immigration to the U.S. were lifted and the Chinese finally opened its doors to the rest of the world. The new wave of immigrants were better educated and more affluent than their predecessors. They had the means to form communities outside of overcrowded Chinatowns. As a result, Asian-prevalent communities such as those in Sunset Park and Flushing came into being.

Places such as Flushing and Sunset Park are not considered traditional enclaves such as Chinatown. They are considered ethnoburbs. One of the reasons they are different from an enclave is because of the diversity found within these communities. It is not solely composed of one ethnicity. There also reside a considerable number of immigrants from various countries. Another reason is that these ethnoburbs tend to be in more suburban areas. The original immigrants who formed this community chose the location because they were socioeconomically able to do so with the intention of forming a comfortable and secure environment, but often times the area becomes filled with successful businesses. When immigrants obtain the means to relocate, many choose to go farther away into suburbs. This may cause conflict with the current residents because of cultural differences.

Some Chinese immigrants who are beginning to establish themselves in predominately-white neighborhoods, will no doubt experience difficulty assimilating into the American culture and obtaining general acceptance by the pre-established natives in the community.

Enclave or Ethnoburb?

Wei Li’s “Beyond Chinatown, beyond enclave: Reconceptualizing contemporary Chinese settlements in the United States” gauges the evolution of ethnic communities, particularly Chinese ones, as they respond to the world around them. Originally, Chinatowns fit the description of a ghetto, being forcibly shut out of the community due to their ethnicity, left to lead less than ideal lives. Having read the Anderson article mentioned, I can attest that the Chinatown of Vancouver was dirty, crime-ridden, and unsafe. As the article explains, this was due to both de facto and de jure causes. Racism permeated American culture at the time and there were many laws prohibiting Chinese from being able to own property, intermarry, or sometimes even attain citizenship. They were heckled and hated by the white folk, being considered as opium users or gambling addicts.

However, as time progressed and more immigrants were arriving at American shores, Chinatowns became enclaves, in the traditional sense, and acted as sources of comfort and security in a new land. These communities became self-sufficient and served as ports of entry for newcomers. They weren’t as limited by legal barricades, but still faced social ones, so to create sustainable living conditions, they banded together in the traditional Chinatown setting.

The most interesting development in this evolution is the notion of an ethnoburb. As times and technologies change, more and more Chinese immigrants are well-educated folks, unlike their predecessors who were often times the laborers or farmers of their homeland. These suburban types of jobs lend themselves to a more suburban type of living, creating these so-called ethnoburbs. Able to assimilate into mainstream society, these people want to still have some sense of identity and heritage, so they form these communities to do so. Another interesting facet of this relatively recent concept is the notion of “parachute kids.” Children are often sent to the United States to receive an education, so these kids end up having a sense of duality. This nontraditional family structure could be a regression away from the more developed ethnoburbs.

Regardless of which ethnic group is being discussed, it is safe to say that more and more immigrants and minorities are finding their way out of ethnic enclaves and into more traditional suburban settings. Li’s diagramming of this progression succinctly exhibits how we truly are a nation of immigrants, and one that advocates cohabitatation regardless of cultural differences.

Immigrant Enclaves: Reading Response # 2

In the article “Flushing 2000: Geographic Explorations in Asian New York” by Christopher J. Smith and John R. Logan, much of the focus is on Asian immigration in the neighborhood of Flushing, Queens. The article shows us both the positive and negative impacts of the large influx of Asian immigrants. In “Beyond Chinatown, beyond Enclave: Reconceptualizing contemporary Chinese settlements in the United States”, Wei Li reports that Chinatowns established in various cities were not always viewed as a thriving immigrant enclave. They were considered to be a ghetto and were similar to the ones that Peter Marcuse described in his article. Therefore, it was interesting to read about how Chinatowns and other areas with a large Chinese population (such as Flushing, Queens) went from outcast communities to thriving immigrant enclaves.

Like we read and discussed in class, these immigrant enclaves promote the upward mobility of their residents. According to Logan & Smith’s observations, these enclaves are thriving because many immigrants bring entrepreneurship skills and establish small businesses. So, they help themselves and also play a key role in the revitalization of their community’s economy. This is clearly evident in Smith & Logan’s study of Flushing where the influx of Asians helped revive the area, which was experiencing a long period of economic decline. Unlike Manhattan’s overcrowded Chinatown, the area of Flushing provided jobs, housing and peaceful lifestyle for its inhabitants, thereby making it attractive for future immigrants. This could probably one of the reasons why many Chinese people (immigrants or non immigrants) choose to move out of Manhattan’s Chinatown (a fact pointed out by Joe Salvo in his presentation at The John Jay School of Criminal Justice).

On the other side of the spectrum, the Logan & Smith’s article reports that the Hispanic population is on the sidelines. Instead of the predicted increase in population, the Hispanic population in Flushing actually leveled off at 20%. Because of the Asian dominance, the Hispanic population instead settled in nearby neighborhoods but they still worked in Flushing.  The Hispanic community was described as an “enclave within a enclave”. This characterization was interesting because even though there is a clear Asian dominance, the Hispanic community has still maintained its foothold in the community instead of being completely wiped out. Another very interesting phenomenon discussed in Wei Li’s article is the influx of affluent Asian immigrants into white suburban neighborhoods. In our previous class, we discussed that Whites preferred to live with Asians and Hispanics who were very assimilated into the American culture and were well established in US (refer to the “buffer theory” in the article “Global Neighborhoods: New Pathways to Diversity and Separation” by Logan & Zhang). Although I am not too familiar with the movement of other Asian groups, I am aware that there is a quite large Indian population residing in the suburban Eastern Queens and part of Nassau county. This could be partly related to their income levels and preference to settle a little further away from heavily crowded urban areas (but still close to major enclaves). This move of well established Asians into suburban towns is highlighted by Wei Li in her article and it shows that other minority groups are integrating with previously all-white communities and are not subject to isolation anymore.

 

The Politics Behind the Chinese: Immigration and Assimilation (or lack thereof)

China and the United States have had a very interesting relationship throughout the decades, one that has gradually emerged from that of Chinese exclusion, to the welcoming of certain Chinese, now seen as beneficial. Wei Li, author of “Beyond Chinatown, Beyond Enclave: Reconceptualizing Contemporary Chinese Settlements in the United States,” explains the utilization of politics as a means to manipulate the Chinese population, both historically and presently.

Li gives much detail regarding the influx of Chinese into the U.S.; he divides Chinese immigration patterns into six time periods, from pre-1882 to the present. In each period of time, there has been some type of political influence; furthermore, these influences have come to “…indirectly impact the types of resulting immigrant settlement patterns.” The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 reigned for 61 years, creating a tumultuous environment for the Chinese that had already immigrated to the U.S. The Exclusion Act caused the Chinese immigrants to recoil from the hostility being tossed at them, resulting in the emergence of Chinese ghettoes.

When the Exclusion Act was repealed in 1942, the ghettoized Chinese communities were relieved of many restrictions, and were legally free to participate in the mainstream market. It is in this way that the Chinese rose from the ghettoes and instead of forming communities as a means of protection from external forces, they voluntarily chose to live in enclaves, bolstering the beginnings of economic prosperity. The Immigration Act of 1965 further opened the doors of the U.S. to especially talented Chinese, who would serve as an asset to the economy.

It is in this way that political influence and immigrant settlement patterns are inextricably linked. Throughout every time period, I noticed one common theme emerge: fear. The Chinese Exclusion Act came at a time when competition was fierce in the U.S.; the Gold Rush was in full swing, and the Chinese miners were seen as a threat by white miners who were eager to claim all the wealth of any one area. The Exclusion Act was repealed when the U.S. was on the eve of joining WWII; the Chinese quickly became allies in the wake of Pearl Harbor, where public disdain shifted to the Japanese. Fear has motivated each political action, be it fear of economic failure, limited resources, or external terror. When the “Monster Houses” were constructed in Silicon Valley, by wealthy Chinese who favored sprawling “multigenerational lots,” two pieces of legislation were passed to set limitations on the housing that could be built. Whites in the area feared change and difference from the status quo–in implementing policy against change, the Whites were able to assert their dominance and quell their fears.

Chinese: Different Destinies in Immigrant New York (Zhou)

In Chinese: Different Destinies in Immigrant New York, Min Zhou describes the Chinese enclaves that exist in New York and also historically explains the reason of great immigration to New York. Zhou also analyzes the settlement of Chinese immigrants and the causes for immigrants to settle at a specific area.

In the 1900s, many Chinese people came to the west coast in search of gold becoming laborers in many industrial sites. They hoped to go back to China with the gold and wealth that they had high hopes of attaining. As a Chinese immigrant said, “New York offers many fortunes but unequal opportunities to newcomers. Not everyone can make it here.” Coming to a new country brings many changes and sometimes immigrant’s destiny to belong in New York does not belong. With more than 1.5 million Chinese people legally admitted in the US (in 1997) the population of these Asians continues to thrive in numbers. One reason why was because of the passage of the Hart-Celler Act which rapidly led Chinese people to fly to America to be with their whole family, rather than have family restrictions. With modernization and push for higher education, many Chinese students have come to New York to make their living similar to those Chinese workers who came in the 1980s.

With the arrival of various Chinese immigrants, not all were on the same boat. Some were poor, some had little education, and others had poor working skills. These characteristics shaped their selection of jobs as well as the place they settled. Zhou focused on three settlements: Old Chinatown, Flushing, and Sunset Park. All three settlements had very distinguishable difference. Old Chinatown was the site where they had the similar “socioeconomic status” with low-wade jobs, low level of education, and more of an area for the elderly. Flushing is more of an area not dense in one ethnicity but is known as the “second” Chinatown that has seen great business and property expansion and offers a good socioeconomic standing. Sunset Park consists of more of a working-class community with little “mobile immigrant Chinese” people  and is the site for not so expensive houses for immigrants to come to. Like other communities in New York, Old Chinatown, Flushing, and Sunset Park are all similar in the make-up but they have different characteristics that suit certain people. When Chinese immigrants come to New York, there are reasons for settlement at a specific community.

Within each Chinese community, there is “class status” that determines what location is the best fit to live. From affordable housing to decent housing, Chinese immigrants look to settle where they can afford and be like the rest of the others. This is a main factor that determines their achievement when they come to New York for a successful life. Another factor is “ethnic networking.” Being a stranger when coming to NY and meeting new people from work or from other areas, it is important to have the connection or friendship near you so their is comfortability as well as a cultural relationship.

With the arrival of these great Chinese populations, different communities have been created and although it may not seem like it, but there are different characteristics that surround each community. I can relate to this article but with the Indian community. Jackson Heights, Queens, and Flushing are sites of big Indian population but only they know the difference in each community. Although I haven’t been to Sunset Park, I’ve been to Old Chinatown and Flushing, but I never distinguished the people from those two areas. I viewed them as the same, but reading this article, by a Chinese person who probably can relate to it, helps us see and think of the differences within the communities in New York. I could tell the differences within the Indian Community since I’m Indian and same for Zhou because she is Chinese. Using that insight and knowledge, I can understand the Chinese settlements as well as how much they have developed.

Chinese: Divergent Destinies in Immigrant New York

In “Chinese: Divergent Destinies in Immigrant New York,” Min Zhou gives a detailed depiction and analysis of the Chinese in their immigrant enclaves. He addresses a broad scope of matters, ranging from spatial, societal, and economic issues, that pertain especially to the Chinese settlement and development.

The Chinese first began to flock to America in search of gold, hoping to strike it rich and consequently return home to their family in China. Most were unsuccessful in doing so and therefore had to remain here. Over time, they engaged themselves in the workforce through a variety of jobs, such as railroad construction and mining. Their role in the economy soon proved quite important in two different respects. The Chinese supported their fellow immigrants by running informal businesses in their enclaves, such as garment business, laundromats, and supermarkets. They also bolstered the global market by involving themselves in high skilled and formal jobs. Interestingly, the types of jobs that were most or least popular depended on the Chinese enclave.

The area where the Chinese immigrants lived was an important factor in their development and lifestyle. Early on, the Chinese lived exclusively in California. Over time, some moved to New York. The Chinese population in California differed from that in New York because the former was less condensed than the latter. Zhou specifically focuses on three main Chinatown areas: Old Chinatown in Manhattan, Flushing, and Sunset Park. Each is culturally distinct from the one another. Old Chinatown is marked by low education and income; Flushing exudes ethnic diversity and the Chinese there are better off socioeconomically; Sunset Park is a working class neighborhood with an ethnic economy that does not provide much social mobility. Zhou argues that while each place is a Chinatown, each has its own unique characteristics. The inhabitants speak the same language, yet they in fact speak Chinese dialects that are mutually intelligible due to the fact that people originate from different villages and Asian countries.

An important point that Zhou tries to focus on throughout the piece is that while these Chinese immigrants are attempting to achieve successful destinies, their progress is often hindered by societal constraints. Chinatown initially started off as a predominantly bachelor neighborhood because few women were allowed to emigrate from China. In fact, they were not allowed to become naturalized citizens.  Whether they integrated themselves in the global economy by working with Americans or lived separately in their own enclaves, the Chinese were vulnerable to incessant discrimination and exclusion. Such marginalization was clear even on a federal level, for Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act that virtually barred any Chinese from immigration to the United States. While the Immigration and Nationality Act greatly expanded the Chinese population in America, they were already set in their lifestyle and continued to maintain Chinatowns in areas in which they comprised a large presence.

Zhou does an excellent job of emphasizing the fact that since their arrival in America, there have been many changes in the Chinese community, both in terms of the actual neighborhood and the inhabitants. While they all came from the same continent, over time their goals and destinies have diverged. Some places have shortcomings while others have impressive strengths.  They have a broad culture, evident especially in the different occupations, which spans the area of Old Chinatown, Flushing, and Sunset Park. Before reading this piece, I grouped all Chinese communities in New York under one category. Now I realize how distinct each one is and how their development over the years has molded them into the ever-changing communities that they are today.

Response to Li’s “Beyond Chinatown”


      What I found most striking about Li’s article was the underlying and persistent theme of agency, meaning “the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices” (Wikipedia). In the case of immigration, this would refer to an immigrant/ immigrant group’s ability to shape their experience in America. In other words, to be able to work, live, learn, and socialize the way they want.

Li discusses the history and legacy of the formation of Chinatowns. What struck me most was his point that Chinatowns were both the cause and effect of the white American population’s prejudice against the Chinese. White Americans said that the Chinese were inflexible and unwilling to adapt to American life and Americans used that accusation to justify using legal and social pressures to isolate the Chinese immigrant population into areas now called Chinatowns. Once these Chinatowns were formed, white Americans portrayed them as the physical manifestation of the Chinese immigrants’ backwardness. Chinese immigrants wanted to adapt and integrate, but they could not, and they were later blamed for their failure to integrate. In other words, the Chinese population had no agency in determining the degree to which they adapted to American life.

These facts beg the question- is the same thing happening today? Are Americans once again depriving immigrants of their ability, and, once could even say right, to integrate into American society? There are some segments of American society and government that want to discourage immigration. They cite the fear that new immigrants will not integrate into American society. In light of Li’s article, however, we need to think- is this very question preventing immigrants from integrating? In line with Li’s thinking,  America’s fear of immigrant social non-compliance is the actual cause of immigrant’s communities inward withdrawals.

Even if this is not the case we must contemplate the how our own preconceived notions of immigrant groups shapes and distorts our views of them. For example, in the last class we discussed how there are some views that immigrants are unwilling to learn English. When my I thought this point over my gut instinct was to agree and think that due to immigrant communities’ isolation, members of those groups had no need and therefore no desire to learn English.  But then I realized that this, in fact, wasn’t true. According to New York City statistics English classes are extremely oversubscribed, meaning that there are a lot more immigrants that want to take classes than there are spaces available. This is exactly the kind of bias that Li makes note of: fact-less and untrue. Reading Li’s article has made me more aware of the necessity of carefully identifying and overriding biases in order to gain a more realistic picture of America’s immigrant population.

 

My Encounter with the Buffer Effect

In Logan and Zhang’s “Global Neighborhoods: New Pathways to Diversity and Separation,” they expanded on a phenomenon in cities that they called the buffer effect. Put simply, it says that communities of white and black people will not last for long because the white people of that community will leave if they feel there is too large of a black presence. The only time that white and black people will live together in a community is if Latinos and Asians move into the white community first. For some reason, this makes it more appealing for blacks to move into what used to be mostly white communities. These mixed communities are said to be unstable because the white populations eventually leave after the blacks come.

As I read about this, several familiar neighborhoods came to mind. One that is close to home in my case is a development complex called LeFrak City. LeFrak City is a collection of 20 apartment buildings that was built in the 1960s to bring some of luxurious aspects of city living into Queens. The development had a pool, a park, a grocery store, and many other such luxuries that attracted some of the wealthier people of Queens. At first, the majority of the residents were wealthy and Jewish. This was the case until Mayor Lindsay designated parts of the complex as affordable housing and he worked to incorporate welfare recipients into the apartments.

The majority of the new tenants that came pouring into Lefrak were low-income blacks. The wealthy Jewish people who lived there beforehand fled in large numbers. In my childhood in Elmhurst, I’ve met many people who currently live in LeFrak, and I’ve noted that the majority of the tenants are black or Hispanic. I’ve also noted a hesitance from other white people to go too close to LeFrak because of a perception of danger that they have about the area.

Through the years, the population of LeFrak has changed from mostly black to nearly half black and half Hispanic. Since this has been true, I feel like there is a slightly better perception of LeFrak by whites in the area. This is obviously different from the view they held of LeFrak in the 1970s, when the buildings were utterly crime and drug ridden. This change in perception bothers me somewhat because it implies that race plays a key role, but nonetheless, it is a clear cut example of how the buffer effect plays a role in tensions between white and black populations in a community.

Global Neighborhoods: New Pathways to Diversity

Global Neighborhoods: New Pathways to Diversity and Separation offered interesting insight on how whites and minorities interact in different neighborhoods, and the sudden disappearance of formerly all white tracts in global cities. This study uncovers an odd phenomenon about how whites and minorities, particularly black people, interact with each other. Research has shown that white people are more likely to leave a neighborhood when black people enter into it, but less likely to do the same when Asians or Hispanics move into their neighborhood. In addition to that, the study also shows another phenomenon called the “buffering hypothesis.” White people are less likely to leave a neighborhood when black people enter a neighborhood if there exists a presence of another minority, Hispanic and Asian people. Also the study notes that only five previously all white tracts made a change from a predominantly white to white-black. In contrast, the number of Hispanic or Asian entry into a previously predominant white society without the entry of blacks was larger than 400.

This study was an eye opener for me, I never once thought about how whites react to minorities moving into their previously all white neighborhoods. The number of all white neighborhoods has taken a big dip from 1980 to 2000 alone. A study done by Freidman notes that predominantly white neighborhoods dropped from a large 54% to just 28%. The future patterns of how white people will choose to live in the future are a mystery, but I believe it will, or may, eventually change. In metropolitan areas, the diversity of neighborhoods has changed how scholars view each area. There are a lot more neighborhoods now that go beyond the white-black tracts and the more common sight is one filled with whites, blacks, Asians, and Hispanics. The concept of buffering of white and black tracts by Asian and Hispanic minorities cannot really be proven to be true, but it’s a concept that should be accepted based on the trends that we see in every in metropolitan areas.

The Enclave, The Citadel, and The Ghetto

Marcuse spends a great deal of his essay discussing the differences between a ghetto and an outcast ghetto. He claims that in a ghetto, the dwellers of the ghetto are incorporated in the mainstream economy, but in an outcast ghetto, they are not. In other words, Marcuse is saying that people living in the ghetto have more value to the society in which they live. This claim is so interesting because in the examples Marcuse gives, when people had a lower view of people, meaning they felt more superior, it was not outcast ghettos that formed, but regular ghettos. For example, he talked about the Venetian Jewish ghetto, in which non-Jews forced the Jews to live in a specific area, but the Jews had businesses outside of the ghetto and contributed to the economy. Most black ghettos now are outcast ghettos, different than the ghettos in which the Jews resided. However, in general, people do not look down upon blacks in the way people looked down upon Jews. Yet, blacks in the ghettos are economically outcaste. This does not make sense.

I would like to understand why people in black ghettos have not been able to incorporate themselves into the economy. I understand Marcuse’s point when he says that you cannot say immigrants living in the enclaves can incorporate themselves, so therefore blacks should too. Blacks are fully American, and have been here for so long. I would like to know if it is the attitudes towards blacks living in ghettos coming from people in the outside or the attitudes from people living in the inside that have hindered Blacks from branching outside of the ghettos; maybe it is both and one attitude affects the other.

One part of this essay that confused me was Marcuse’s statement that people do not voluntarily live in ghettos, whereas people voluntarily living in enclaves. There is no legal segregation, so Blacks can choose to live in places that are not ghettos, but Marcuse talks about the inability for Blacks to move out of ghettos. There are other places that are affordable. Maybe there are enclave characteristics of ghettos that keep people in ghettos (living there is more comforting), and living in ghettos is actually voluntary for some.

That’s So Ghetto….

Upon completing the readings, the article that fascinated me the most was The Enclave, The Citadel, and the Ghetto authored by Peter Marcus from Columbia University. The word ghetto is often nonchalantly thrown around by those of my generation. It is not uncommon to hear one of my peers say, “That’s really ghetto” in reference to something that they deem of crappy quality. I would be lying if I said I wasn’t guilty of this “political incorrectness.” The word has also become synonymous of minority groups living in the projects.  Although this utilization of the word remains more true to the actual meaning of the word, it still has a negative connotation.  According to Marcus, a ghetto is a spatially concentrated area used to seperate and to limit a particular involuntarily defined population group held to be and treated as, inferior by the dominant society. In any case, this piece illustrated that the word ghetto has a more significant meaning that certain groups of people might find offensive given the misused context.

 

Immigrant Neighborhoods in Global Cities: Enclaves, Citadels, and Ghettos

Having read all three pieces because I will be leading the classroom discussion on Immigrant Neighborhoods in Global Cities, I decided to reflect here on my reaction to the piece that I found most fascinating: “The Enclave, the Citadel, and the Ghetto: What has Changed in the Post-Fordist US City.” As neither a minority nor an immigrant nor an upscale elitist, it seems odd that this piece would speak to me. Yet as I read it, I understood that such spatial clusterings reflected stagnation, or worse, regression, in our society. Marcuse accurately describes how the black ghetto causes the inhabitants to be outcasts in society, how the immigrants in their enclave are more of a congregation, and how the upscale arrogantly choose to dwell in citadels. One would expect that such social confinement and inflexibility were archaic and a thing of the past, and yet here Marcuse highlights how it is very much present in our society.

One piece that particularly stood out was the reference to the Jewish ghettos. Marcuse quotes a bishop’s explanation that the rationale was to makes Jews feel special once outside of the ghetto. This explanation is severely misleading and highlights the terrible nature of the ghetto. The placement of Jews in their own ghettos, or quarters as they are sometimes called, stemmed not from special treatment, but from unadulterated Anti-Semitism. To apply the bishop’s logic to the ghetto inhabitants nowadays: blacks are placed together because when they leave, they will feel special once they enter an all white town. The problem nowadays is even worse, because the blacks in the ghetto are considered outcasts and are practically shunned from general interaction. The truth is that placing blacks in their own ghettos stems from racism. And nearly every time Jews were placed in ghettos, they were tormented or killed; any marginalized people are vulnerable to this exact fate. The notion that a ghetto still exists in a country that prides itself on every citizen having personal rights is frightening; Marcuse notes that the concept of having ghettos for blacks stems from the post Civil War, when they were trying to figure out what to do with former slaves. Essentially, this special enclosure is an extension of maintaining control over blacks as they were when they were slaves. The ghettos must be stopped lest history (slavery, torture, and mass killings) repeat itself.

Response: Immigrant Neighborhoods in Global Cities

When reading Global Neighborhoods: New Pathways to Diversity and Separation, Logan and Zhang stated that, “… whites remain in neighborhoods where they constitute a large majority and where other conditions…suggest an attractive housing market…new minorities are able to enter when conditions suggest that the neighborhood is no longer attractive…” Upon reading this sentence, I recalled reading President Obama’s novel, Dreams from my Father, published before he became the President. In one section, Obama had worked as a community organizer, and he wrote about how many of the white residents had moved away from the neighborhood as African-Americans residents moved in. The property values fell, and the general area diminished in quality. This resulted in many of the current residents moving out, and the same white residents moving back in, buying up the lands at a cheaper price. When using that information as the context to this article, it is easy to see that this problem is not an isolated one, nor is it a recent one. This issue has been happening as new immigrants have moved in. The white population has been moving out and further away, either to other cities or to the suburbs. Logan and Zhang also assert that in no way do global communities make any racial divides disappear; in fact, the most common example of this would be on the subway. As we board the train and it winds through the boroughs, there are neighborhoods where one ethnicity or one race tend to gather. Though New York City itself is a global city, there are still invisible divides, however minute.

In Enclaves, Citadels and Ghettos, Marcuse states that there are significant differences between the three. Marcuse also explains the difference between a ghetto-which would be an area where residents are involuntarily made to be inferior to other members outside of the ghetto, and enclaves. There are two types of enclaves: an immigrant enclave and a cultural enclave. Perhaps the most prominent ghetto in New York City that comes to mind is Harlem; Marcuse states that while Harlem was the center for black culture, it has changed. “42% of Harlem’s residents live below the poverty line” and “the death rate in that area is higher than any other place in the city”. When taking enclaves, citadels and ghettos into consideration, one must also remember that the richest areas in New York City-the Upper East and Upper West Sides: homes that go for tens, hundreds of millions- and one of the poorest ares in the entire nation-Harlem- are only separated by a few blocks, with a common route that cuts through both: Broadway.

Finally, in Immigration and the Global City Hypothesis, Samers explains the origins of immigrants the mark they left on the city. Samers alludes to the fact that many of the new residents took up jobs in manufacturing, and we see that it is because of their participation in jobs like clothes manufacturing that the city was allowed to change and develop, for better and for worst. All three of these works have gone to show the origins of neighborhood developments in New York City, and what the results were of industrialization and immigration on current and arriving residents.

Immigrant Neighborhoods in Global Cities: Reading Response # 1

In the article, “The Enclave, the Citadel, and the Ghetto: What has Changed in the Post-Fordist US City”, Peter Marcuse accurately describes an “enclave”, a “citadel” and “the ghetto”. Marcuse provides an extremely engaging in depth analysis of the various characteristics of each of these “social spaces” or “spatial clustering” that define and distinguish them from one another. For example, the article draws a very clear line between immigrant enclaves and the black ghettos. I cannot say much about the black ghettos of New York City but as an immigrant, I can confirm the article’s claim that most immigrant communities are established voluntarily to provide support to one another so that everyone can achieve upward mobility in the American society is very on point. Marcuse makes another interesting observation that that the residents of Black ghettos rarely ventured out to participate in mainstream economic activity. Meanwhile, immigrant entrepreneurs used their business as a means of communication with the non-immigrant world. Although this observation about the “black ghettos” might be relevant in economic terms, I think that not all black neighborhoods are secluded from society. In fact, they are an integral part of the mainstream society and do exert a major influence on culture. For example, rap music is indeed a very popular music genre and has had a significant impact on our mainstream music industry. Therefore, I learned that while this article reports some very interesting facts, not all points discussed apply to all urban black ghettos.

Also, instead of just merely reporting facts such as high crime and unemployment rates, this highly informative article further explains why these “outcast black ghettos” are in their current state. These new ghettos, which emerged in the Post-Fordist cities, were subject to social and economic segregation. According to the article, the residents of the “citadel” (the upper wealthy class) labeled the black ghettos as “a leper society” mainly because they provide little or no benefit to the economy. Instead, it is assumed that they drain the public and private resources. This labeling could be a reason why residents rarely established businesses outside their ghettos. But once again, this observation may be flawed because such characteristics are not shared by every black neighborhood, especially in such a diverse city like New York.

            Although we don’t always observe blatant discrimination in New York City, we can often notice the residential segregation. Various examples of the predominantly black neighborhoods, immigrant enclaves and the exclusive “citadels” can be found. An example of a “citadel” would be the luxurious apartments on Manhattan’s Upper East Side where the wealthy reside. Certain areas of Manhattan and Bronx, on the other hand, are labeled as the “ghetto” mainly because of their large Black population and their relatively low-income levels. Chinatown is considered to be a thriving immigrant enclave because it is always bustling with great economic and cultural activity. I think that by informing the readers with extensive information about these various “social spaces” that comprise the city, I realized that stratification in terms of race is even more prominent that I thought.

Reading Response #1

Out of the assigned readings, the article that most stood out to me was the one titled Global Neighborhoods: New Pathways to Diversity and Seperation. Last year in high school I based my Macaulay Honors college essay on reasons for Hispanics and Blacks having the lowest college graduation rate of all ethnic groups. Some possible causes of these daunting statistics were income, conformity and stereotypes. One of the points that I found interesting while reading this article, was where the author stated that evidence suggests that Hispanic share predicts Black entry into white tracts, but that White exodus increases with the share of Hispanics, Blacks and Asians. Based on the research I did for my college essay, I wonder if economic status or similarities in their experiences with society are some of the reasons while Blacks feel more comfortable moving into White neighborhoods if Hispanics are present. In addition to this, another thought that I had while reading the article was that it did not do a good job of explaining the reasons as to why Whites are more likely to leave areas that primarily inhabited by minorities. Why is it that people of different cultures such as Asians, Blacks and Hispanics are more likely stay in one neighborhood together, but on the hand Whites are less likely to remain in that neighborhood? What is it about the arrival of Hispanics and Asians that has kept Blacks from depopulating certain cities? Furthermore, although, according to the article, there is still some white-black segregation, it was fascinating to read about how diverse a lot of cities have still managed to become. Having been born and raised in Queens, I have always noticed its unique diversity in comparison to other cities. It was interesting to read about how this trend of diversity is spreading to other places as well. However, it was upsetting to find out that researchers have not yet discovered a clear process to bring Whites back into minority-filled neighborhoods. This indicates to me, that there will never be a way to increase the diversity of White, Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics in EVERY city. This, I believe prevents those city residents from having the opportunity of interacting with people of different cultures, in the way that I have been able to during all my years that I have lived in New York.

Peter Marcuse’s “The Enclave, The Citadel, and The Ghetto: What Has Changed in the Post-Fordist U.S. City”

In this text, Peter Marcuse discusses the implications of the enclave, citadel and ghetto in post 1960-70 cities. He first makes it a point to define each system of division, and continues on in familiarizing the reader with each concentration of people by sharing the taxonomy behind each concentration, ranging from “spatial formation” to the “identifying characteristics” of any one peoples.

Ghetto: “A spatially concentrated area used to seperate and to limit a particular involuntarily defined population group held to be and treated as, inferior by the dominant society.”

  • Outcast Ghetto: “A ghetto of the excluded, rather than of the dominated and exploited.”

Enclave: “Generally seen as positive; members of a particular population group…congregate as a means of enhancing their economical, social, political and cultural development.”

Citadel: “A spatially concentrated area in which members of a particular population group, defined by its position of superiority, in power wealth, or status, in relation to its neighbors, congregate as a means of protecting or enhancing that position.”

After grasping these core definitions, I realized that communities around me possess one or many of these attributes, and could be characterized accordingly (though the lines between ghettos and enclaves can very easily blur.)

Though the text discusses many features of the ghetto, enclave and citadel, I was most intrigued by the economic relationship that each concentration of people shared both within their communities and outside of their immediate areas. Marcuse, throughout the text, explores the economic impact of the outcast ghetto. Where a traditional ghetto is seen as inferior by the majority of people residing in the area surrounding it, and outcast ghetto builds upon this definition and is almost ignored, especially when looking at the outcast ghetto from an economic standpoint. A traditional ghetto is not necessarily separated from the mainstream economy (in terms of being occupied outside the ghetto, or using services such as grocery stores or laundromats). An outcast ghetto, however, provides little to no economic advantage to its surrounding area, and burdens the area rather than adding to it. It is in this way that divisions are deepened, and the internal economy of an outcast ghetto is perpetuated. This is especially detrimental to the outcast ghetto if its economy is already sub par with little growth.

When looking to the enclave, the economic relationship between the concentrated population and its surrounding area is different that that of the outcast ghetto. Since enclaves are typically composed of immigrants or cultural groups (in terms of religion, etc.), rather than blacks, they are perceived somewhat differently. Since enclaves are largely seen as voluntary congregations rather than exclusions, they are free to participate in the outside economy, but many choose not to simply because of the prosperity already existing within their enclave. In many cases, immigrants/ cultural groups have chosen to expand their businesses outside of their enclaves, and in the process familiarize the outside population with their culture, opening the door to potential integration. Where outcast ghettos are seen as a burden, enclaves can present a wealth of economic opportunity, and sometimes are essential to the upkeep of the mainstream economy of an area.

Lastly, the citadel differs from both the ghetto and enclave in that it is always “defined by its position of superiority.” Inhabitants of a citadel are afraid of being adversely influenced by sub par economic conditions outside their realm, and thus attempt to “shut in” their economic wealth and success.

I was surprised that the ghetto, enclave and citadel could be characterized in terms of economic condition, and economic relations both within their realms and outside. I came away from reading this text with a few questions: Do any of the communities I’m familiar with in the NYC area display these economic typifications? Do I routinely overlook examples that I may come into contact with on a day to day basis? For example, I take the bus through Flushing, NY every morning on my commute to Queens College. Flushing appears to resemble an enclave; the Asian-Americans who reside in Flushing are largely a congregation of immigrants who have flocked together in one area for cultural, socioeconomic, and political support. I have noted over the years that the majority of shops and services offered in Flushing are Asian-oriented, from restaurants to hairdressers. I’m interested in looking into the economic statistics of the area as we go through the semester.

 

Course Description

Featured

The second Honors College seminar investigates the role of immigration and migration in shaping New York City.  Our class will focus on immigrant community formations in the borough of Queens where the racial and ethnic diversity is unparalleled.  If treated as a separate city, Brooklyn and Queens would rank fourth and fifth respectively in population size following New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago.  New York City’s status as a global city is, in part, attributable to its diverse and dynamic population.  Driven by immigration, a full 36% of New Yorkers were born outside of the United States but the immigrant presence is even greater in Queens where nearly half of the borough’s residents are foreign-born.  Long established as a majority “minority” city, New York City’s Latino and Asian populations continue to increase in contrast to other racial groups and nowhere is this trend more evident than in Queens where the population share of Latinos is equal to non-Hispanic whites (28%) and followed closely by Asians (23%).  Moreover, Queens’ majority immigrant Latino-Asian population is distinguished by a hyperdiversity of ethnicities, languages, and cultures.

Our class work will inform and possibly contribute to a book project led by QC Professor Ron Hayduk (Political Science) and myself titled, Immigrant Crossroads: Globalization, Incorporation, and Place-Making in Queens, NY.  In addition to an introduction to the extensive literature on post-1965 immigration, our class will engage in a study of the neighborhood landscape of Queens to localize issues of demographic change and race and ethnic relations; post-industrial urbanization and transnational capital; immigrant engagement in social justice activism and political incorporation; and urban labor markets and informality.  We will focus our research on several Queens neighborhoods including Jackson Heights, Corona, and Richmond Hill.