Color-Full before Color Blind: The Emergence of Multiracial Neighborhood Politics in Queens, New York City by Roger Sanjek dissects how far diversity has come in the Elmhurst- Corona neighborhood. Sanjek refers Jacobs idea of the three levels of urban existence. The first being “the city as a whole,” the second being “the street neighborhood” and the last being “the district.” The article discusses the “majority minority” transition seen in many New York cities over the last 50 years. For Elmhurst- Corona, the threshold was broken in the 1970s when a previously 98% white population in 1960 turned into a 34% in 1980 and dropped to 18% in 1990.

Sanjek focused his fieldwork on Community Board 4. He attended 123 meetings and public hearings. In order to get a better sense of the community as a whole, Sanjek attended protest rallies, park openings, church services, as well as walking around the local parks. In the 1960s, the purpose of community boards was for “city budget recommendations, land use review and for monitoring the municipal service delivery.” Although the claim was for improvement, the community board in practice began with racist roots. In the Lefrak City Tennant Association, the blacks were referred to as “welfare cases” and immigrants as “people’s pollution.”

The board was unable to develop any ideas that could be implemented into the community. With no improvement and change, the community faced a decreased quality of life which came with an increased level of violence. It was clear that something must be done in order to combat violence. The community board decided it was finally time to work as one to decide what the community needed. Over time, the board began to represent most ethnic groups that made up the population and were able to meet the needs of the community.

In “Color-Full before Colorblind: The Emergence of Multiracial Neighborhood Politics in Queens, New York City”, Roger Sanjek follows Elmhurst-Corona on its transition to a “majority-minority” area.  Elmhurst-Corona underwent this transition in the 1970s, when the white population dropped from 98% to 67% and Latin Americans.  By 1990, 45% were Latin American, 26% were Asian, and 10% were black.  Many different ethnicities were mixed into the Elmhurst-Corona area that was once predominantly European.  With the increase of minorities in this district, there was an increase in minority participation in community boards and the issues that were brought up.  One issue that grabbed most residents’ attention was the removal of the police station on their block.  Lucy Schilero, an Italian born resident, went around her neighborhood to gather support to stop it from happening.  As Schilero describes who she gathered and wants to gather to go to the board meetings, it is clear that there is a variety of ethnicities that live in Elmhurst-Corona and that they have become so prevalent that they should be informed about community issues.  While the native European residents are more involved in community boards and issues, their support needs to be assisted with that of minorities.  Sanjek also found that it is the women of the community that usually formed an network of cross-racial ties in Elmhurst-Corona.  Chodorow finds that this is related to earlier ideas of socialization where women were identified as “relational” and men were identified as “positional”.  This means that women were more likely to form connections with other people, while men worked and sought hierarchal positions.  The fact that most female leaders that formed cross-racial groups were housewives who worked from home supports this theory.  They were more likely to go out and become involved with other people and seek others to become involved in the community than men were.

The Hum article discussed how community organizations have tried to fill the holes not filled by community boards. According to the article, even though Sunset Park is not a majority white, white people are the majority in community board 7. The article did not state whether this was the case in Flushing, but since the two community boards were grouped into the same paper maybe it is. The community boards do not create perfect space for talks about race relations and solutions to the issues between races are not created by some community boards. If one group that isn’t even the majority is too dominating, it must be very  difficult to complain about that group.

I found the KACF’s solution to race issues in Flushing to be such a smart and responsible first step. I admire the initiative that the KACF took after it saw all the racial tension, shown by the complaints written to the city council, that had been created after the building of the Korean spa. The KACF had already worked on solving race issues, when there was conflict between Koreans and blacks, so it made sense to lead a meeting involving problem solving with multiple ethnicities during this unstable time. In the meeting, community leaders from all different ethnicities present in Flushing could openly discuss what each group wanted. Some issues brought to the meeting were that businesses were not speaking enough English, law enforcement was not strong enough, and immigrants experienced discrimination. The community leaders were supposed to think of steps that could be made, so these issues were lessened.

According to the essay, meetings like this one could not be a one time thing, if they were going to have any positive affects. At the end of the meeting, participants did seem hopeful for future race relations in Flushing. I am interested in knowing what the actual results were after months or years of meeting. Even after the first meeting, with everybody’s complaints out in the open, tensions between these community leaders were probably lessened, but what about the general population that was not present at this meeting? Did community leaders report back to the communities? Also, were the issues discussed and solutions brainstormed brought to the community board meetings, so that the solutions could actually happen?

Roger Sanjek’s article, “Color-Full before Colorblind: The Emergence of Multiracial Neighborhood Politics in Queens, New York City,” created a timeline of Queens Community Boards, particularly in the Elmhurst-Corona neighborhood. Originally a overwhelmingly white area known as Lefrak City, Elmhurst-Corona began to see an increase in minority residents during the 1970s, following the ban on restrictive covenants. Sanjek makes several interesting points to explain how the local politics shifted with the ethnographic populations.

A notable point is that this time period is also characterized by the city’s fiscal crisis, which really left Queens at a disadvantage; Sanjek even says that Manhattan was the “favored son.” WIth so many cuts to public services such as sanitation, libraries, schools, and fire departments, Queens citizens took it upon themselves to fight back, so to speak. Originally there were wardens who relayed grievances to the respective department or institution. Eventually, community boards grew out of this, and Sanjek timelines how these went from being solely white enterprises, but through gradual additions of Asians, Latinos, and African-Americans, community boards became as multiethnic, or “color-full,” as the community itself.

Another interesting point is how the shift to being more diverse coincided with a shift in gender as well. Sanjek relays how more women contributed to creating a “network of cross-racial ties in Elmhurst-Corona” and how this is attributed to socialization and gender characterization (this reminded me to Gilligan’s In a Different Voice-different moralities between genders). However, I find that Lucy Schilero put it best by saying, “…we have to live with one another or we won’t survive.” This statement rings true for all neighborhoods and perhaps Elmhurst-Corona can be a model for a well-functioning, multiracial community engaged in local politics.

Contrastingly, the Hum article, “Planning in Neighborhoods with Multiple Publics: Opportunities and Challenges for Community-Based Nonprofit Organizations,” exposes the downfalls of community boards, in particular their inability to reconcile class and racial differences. Often community board members aren’t representative of the community because it requires a generous portion of time to partake in such an activity. Many lower-class and immigrant citizens have to work, often long hours, to support their families, so they do not have the luxury to give up ample amounts of time to sit on a community board. Therefore, many community boards consist of privileged white folks who do not necessarily have the interests of minorities or the poor in mind.

In his article Color-Full before Color Blind: The Emergence of Multiracial Neighborhood Politics in Queens, New York City, Roger Sanjek analyzes the development of Elmhurst-Corona over the years, specifically highlighting the immense diversity that has played a key role in the interracial political collaboration on the community board level. Known for its significant “majority-minority” shift, Elmhurst-Corona today bears no resemblance to its previous state of exclusive whiteness. It is no longer homogenous, as is evident by the progress that the community board has experienced. In fact, Sanjek develops the idea that the community board is essentially a microcosm for the state of Elmhurst-Corona and of the minority groups that live there.

Initially those from Lefrak City Tennant Association, who were mostly white, were invited to the Community Board. During one of the meetings, they referred to blacks as “welfare cases”. While this offensive reference was highly inaccurate, it was not the sole instance of derogatory slander toward minorities; the white chairman referred to immigrants as “people’s pollution”.

The community board, with its racist and myopic outlook, did not solve any problems, and with the onset of financial problems in the area, the situation in Elmhurst-Corona deteriorated. The quality of life worsened dramatically as crime skyrocketed. This violence was thus the impetus that the community board required to facilitate camaraderie by working together and putting their differences aside- or rather, bringing their differences to the table and embracing the cultural diversity. Both literally and figuratively, the community board was beginning to shape up. For example, Lucy Schilero, an Italian, began interacting with and befriending those of different nationalities, eventually forming a coalition. This played a vital role in the development of the community board because there were now ways of establishing change through petitions as well as focusing on important topics at the meetings. Over time, the Community Board more accurately reflected the diversity within Elmhurst-Corona; churches, Koreans and Latin Americans also joined in order to have a say. Women particularly played an important role in the community board because they created a pathway for all different peoples to join in. As leadership members, the women also decided on what projects to focus on, such as education.

In one sentence, Sanjek essentially summarizes the entire argument of the article: “Without a community board there would have been no public forum at which white, black, Latin American, and Asian leaders had a place to interact (769)”. The community board functioned as a means of bringing a variety of people together who otherwise would have remained separate, or worse, combative. Elmhurst-Corona was not always intended to be the heterogeneous area that it is today. Yet the community board transformed Elmhurst-Corona’s diversity into a boon and thus helped shape the area into the unique place it is today.

In both the articles by Sanjek and Hum, the focus was on the histories, roles, and realities of some of New York City’s community boards. What struck me the most about both articles was how seemingly powerless and therefore ineffective the community boards were. In principle, these groups give power to the communities that they represent by providing a public forum where residents can voice their concerns. In practice, they hold no real leverage over the city or even over their respective borough presidents. There have been cases where if appointed community board members were outspoken against the agenda of their borough president, those board members were removed. Effectively, they are subject to the whims of those who appoint them, and there is nothing in place to protect them from being removed. Since their suggestions for funding or legislation are just that – merely suggestions – they do not hold any real political power.

The power has always and will always rest in the hands of the people. Yes, legislators are really the ones with power, but they are elected by the people. Also, the residents of a neighborhood will always know best what that neighborhood needs, so it is best that the change in that neighborhood is facilitated by its residents. This is a commonality between both articles – where the community boards failed to initiate change, local nonprofit organizations succeeded, or at least did better than the community boards in their efforts.

It is possible for these organizations to do this because they are not appointed and cannot be silenced or defunded in any simple way by the city. They raise the money on their own terms. This is just speculation, but there is also a feeling that since these organizations revolve around community and philanthropy instead of politics, they are more inviting and approachable to the public. Another benefit of these community based nonprofits is that there are many, each based on a different constituency or issue. Even though some of these organizations are centered around a particular constituency, they often work to change neighborhoods for the better, not just for that group but for all residents. The whole of these groups together better reflects the demographics of the communities they represent compared to the community boards. In dynamic and diverse neighborhoods such as Elmhurst-Corona and Flushing, new groups will continue to form even as older ones diminish in power, with each new group bringing its own support and resources to the community. This process of renewal and inclusion is what members of the community boards can only wish to have.

In his article, Color-full before Color Blind: The Emergence of Multiracial Neighborhood Politics in Queens, New York City, Roger Sanjek talks about the “majority minority” transition in Elmhurst-Corona during the 1970s. A part of his study, which began in 1982, documents the political involvement of Latino and Asian immigrants in Elmhurst-corona. Previously, we read about the various immigrants vs. whites conflicts. Sanjek not only focuses on these conflicts but he also disproves some of the negative misconceptions about immigrants and Blacks. For example, many white residents of Corona thought that Lefrak City was full of “welfare cases” and therefore, it automatically became an undesirable place to live in. However, Sanjek uses data that proves that this is not true mainly because the blacks that lived in Lefrak city actually earned more than their white neighbors in Corona. Also, many white residents considered immigrants to be “people pollution” and “illegal aliens”. However, by conducting a survey, Sanjek found that many of these immigrants were visa holders, permanent residents or naturalized citizens.

In his talk at the Asian American Center at Queens College, Professor Vattamala talked about how districts sometimes get divided in an uneven way. Some of the ethnically saturated areas get split up and therefore; these ethnic groups are not accurately represented and their needs are not met. However, this situation did not occur in Elmhurst-Corona during the mid 1980s. As we have read and discussed in class before, new immigrants are not usually active in politics due to several reasons (such as discrimination based on race or ethnicity). Looking at the examples presented by Sanjek, it is important to notice that in order to bring attention to issues that matter to immigrants, a representative (usually from the same race that he or she is representing) is needed to encourage immigrants to get involved in politics. For example, Haydee Zambrana, a Puerto Rican, worked to provide services for non-English speakers from Latin America. It was remarkable to see that when Zambrana joined community board 4 in 1984, Latin American membership also doubled. The Korean American Association of Mid-Queens also increased Korean involvement in politics by successfully registering 6000 Korean voters in 1996. By looking at this increase in political involvement, it was interesting to see how such activism can help uplift immigrants by prompting them to voice their opinion in places and be a part of the decision making processes regarding their communities.