Peopling of NYC 2012

Though all the articles focus on the range of cultural diversity and the divides that generally come along with such a presence, Chapter 5 of Foner seems to nicely tie the issues of diversity and prejudice together.  According to the Crowder and Rogers articles, West Indians tend to be “lumped in” with African Americans. No matter how one cuts it, West Indians are seen as black; though they noticed that white Americans tend to treat West Indians somewhat better than they do African Americans (most likely due to the West Indians’ way of speaking English), they also noticed that, the majority of the time, they faced discrimination and even violence, as do African Americans. Interestingly enough, though, West Africans tend to create their own enclaves within black communities. The situation appears to be that, due to real estate agents’ discriminatory practices, West Africans have little choice but to move to black neighborhoods. However, they express their desire to be seen as separate by concentrating themselves within those neighborhoods, instead of dispersing throughout. As Karen noted, there is actual difference between race and ethnicity- as Tyler noted, people ignorantly decide that the two go together and that groups with the same race should desire to join together in coalition.

After reading the chapter in Foner, I find the issue of race and ethnicity altogether interesting, but find (as many others do) the system to be pretty flawed, as well as the implication that comes with being attached to a certain race, regardless of ethnicity. The problem is not so much what one’s ethnicity is, but the implication that comes with belonging to a certain race or a category of certain facial features; no matter how someone may try to act, they can never escape their appearance, and the social implications that arise with appearance. In that case, the problems of prejudice and blurring of ethnicities will not be solved if people try to identify as white or a race that is more highly accepted, or shun those of their same race, because this just emphasizes the fact that whites generally have higher status. Instead, as Sanjek says, we should learn to be “colorful before being colorblind”, and live together, which implies that enclaves are no good in fostering acceptance of cultural diversity, and that we should learn to appreciate the different features a person may have, regardless of what categories they are assigned to. I find that this idea applies to myself. Throughout all my years, I have attended highly culturally diverse schools. As result, I focus more on what a person is like based on personality or actions rather than on race or appearances.

The first thing that popped into my head while reading Peter Kwong’s article about illegal immigration was Stephen Colbert’s testimony before Congress during a hearing called “Protecting America’s Harvest.” Colbert was one in a group of 14 who took up the United Farm Worker’s offer to “take our jobs”- to try working in fields to see if illegal immigrants really are taking the good jobs away from Americans. The main points he made throughout the hearing, most of them disguised by sarcasm (gotta love that guy), was that barely anyone took the UFW up on their offer to give them what is considered “immigrant work,” and that the work itself was extremely difficult. Basically, most Americans don’t want that type of job anyway. This parallels Kwong’s point that America relies on immigrant workers for much of it’s labor, and the focus shouldn’t be on targeting the illegals, but rather be less strict on them in order to fight the smuggling issues. He briefly connects illegal immigration to the drug war, saying “the smuggling business is so profitable, that, like the drug trade, it is able to offer high prices to coopt government officials,” which was interesting because I myself see a few similarities. Personally I think that spending billions of dollars fighting the war on drugs is not in the United State’s best interest. Like the way we currently handle immigration, it only supports cartels and makes criminals out of those who shouldn’t necessarily be deemed ones (youth, or in the case of immigration, the illegals).  By better regulating immigration, and allowing illegals to speak out against smugglers (give them protection if they come forward) and unfair working conditions (which would take away employer incentive to single out illegals), the problem can be attacked at it’s base. The main problems isn’t the illegal immigrants who come into this country, but rather the people who smuggle them, and the people who hire them.

The article by Crowder discussed the distribution of West Indian Blacks in New York. It clearly shows the difference between ethnicity and race. While African Americans and West Indian Blacks may be of the same race, their ethnicities are completely different, which explains why West Indians have developed distinct enclaves within the black areas. African Americans and West Indians are both discriminated against and denied access to stable white communities, yet the differences in their ethnicities make them two distinct groups.

Although the cultures of African Americans and West Indians are different, one may argue that it would be advantageous for them to unite because it would give them more political power. In Sanjek’s article, he asserts that “the more divided the power of numbers, the more likely the worst will prevail.” The reasons why West Indians choose to live in their own enclaves are because they want to preserve their cultural identity and because it has proven to be economically beneficial for them to do so. The enclaves where West Indians settle tend to be better neighborhoods than the surrounding areas occupied by African Americans and West Indians tend to be viewed in a “more favorable light light. “ This reminds me of how both the Mexicans and the Chinese used stereotypes to their advantage. The West Indians in a similar manner are able to use this stereotype to obtain jobs. By maintaining their ethnic diversity the West Indians are attempting to lessen racism and avoiding being associated with America’s lowest social position, according to Crowler. However, although the position of West Indians in American society is somewhat better than that of African Americans, they would still have something to gain from uniting with African Americans to assert political power. I think it would be possible for these groups to unite politically yet still maintain their own distinct cultures. Unification does not have to come by the sacrifice of ethnic identity.

As unfortunate as it is, people are always being categorized and stereotyped based off of their skin color and race. When it comes to interaction (social, economic, political) between different races, especially of those with different skin tones, little consideration is given to personal, individual quality. Immediately, sets of stereotypes take over peoples’ perceptions of others. Let us consider for example, those of dark skin color. Crowder in his article, researched the differences between West Indian blacks and African American blacks. In his article he mentions that socially, the two groups are both considered by society as being “black”; however, they are far from the same. Data and research from Crowder’s article revealed that West Indians are actually at a small advantage over African Americans in terms of residency, economic standing, and other factors. Their heritage is vastly different, and interaction between the two groups is limited. As different as they are, society sees them as the same, being of similar skin color, and this is where we run into a problem. In this aspect, we cannot treat things as black and white. We cannot let something as simple as skin color override our perception of individual personality, skill, and capabilities.

In Rogers’ article, Rogers talks about minority group coalitions between African Americans and non-white Americans, specifically Afro-caribbean Americans. He constantly speaks about the “minority group perspective,” an idea that because minorities share the same afflictions, and political strife, they should find it easy to form alliances. Such an idea however feeds into the black and white perspective. Through the minority group perspective, we’re taking groups of people that differ vastly by religion, race, and culture, and throwing them together into one “minority group.” The idea supposedly raises the question: Why don’t they all get along even though racially, they face the same hardship and alienation from white Americans? Alliances between these minority groups are not going to be so clear cut. As Rogers examined, even Afro-Caribbean Americans and African Americans who have many racial commonalities, find it very hard to come to terms with each other. This is due solely to their cultural differences, and their reluctancies to diffuse. Such is the case for all minorities. Racism and segregation don’t only exist between whites and minorities. Minorities often times berate other minorities, creating another, shall we call “white to minority” relationship. This in turn ruins the chance for any of these minority groups ever coming together.

All of this talk about minority group coalitions and simple categorizing becomes extremely relevant to today’s time. As Sanjek points out, many communities, especially within New York, are demographically approaching a “majority minority” transition. This transition brings about the rise of minorities in neighborhoods, and the decline of what was once considered the majorities. Take into consideration, Elmhurst-Corona, the neighborhood Sanjek frequently uses in his article. The white population of Elmhurst-Corona saw a decline by as much as 80% over the course of several decades. As more and more immigrants pour into New York, neighborhoods fill up with more minorities. Today, we have reached a point where minorities are minorities no longer. At this point, it becomes more important in analyzing the ways many of these different races interact with each other. We have to take down this black and white perception of people of different cultures, and consider a world full of color, where everyone can feel comfortable by the fact that they aren’t being scrutinized for something as simple as skin color. The world has yet to achieve such a goal, however the idea may be able to foster in small neighborhoods and hopefully spread out elsewhere around the world.

Throughout this week’s articles, a prevailing theme appears to be the relationship between African-American and Afro-Carribbean minorities living within New York City. One of the main questions that arises is, “why do Afro-Carribbean immigrants choose to distinct themselves from the African-American community already living in New York City instead of unifying with them to gain some sort of power?”

Most scholars and political scientists seem to share the perspective of the minority view, where people of the same racial status seem to unite to gain more political power. However, this has shown to be a common misconception, at least in the case of the Afro-Caribbean and African-American minorities. To put it bluntly, scientists assume that because two groups of people hold a similar racial status automatically means that they would want to unite in order to gain some sort of power, whether its political, economical, social, etc. In my eyes that seems to be somewhat racist. People wouldn’t assume that Italians and Greeks would unite just because both people are of similar race and have the same color skin in order to gain power, so why say that about black people? People’s cultures are very unique and distinct and should not be determined purely by the color of skin or racial status.

There are numerous factors that makes it understandable as to why Afro-Caribbeans would want to distance themselves from African-Americans. One is to merely hold on to their culture and values. Now that they are in America, I don’t believe that Afro-Caribbeans would want to lose their identity and be recognized as an African-American. This urge to culturally diverge from African-Americans is shown by the Afro-Caribbean enclaves that form within the African-American communities. Instead of blending and integrating into the community, Afro-Carribeans literally isolate themselves from the rest of the community. Second of all, some Afro-Caribbeans like to use their distinction from African-Americans to obtain certain jobs. In one of the articles, it stated how employers prefer to hire Afro-Caribbean employees due to the stronger work ethic they adopted back home as opposed to African-Americans who seem to be less diligent. These are just a few of the prevalent factors that seem to justify why Afro-Caribbeans choose not to unify with African-Americans.

Afro-Caribbeans and African-Americans are not the same people. Conflict and turmoil between these two groups can prove it. To become united may or may not gain them some sort of newfound power, but would it be worth the cost of losing their identity. As of now, I don’t think so.

I found this week’s articles particularly interesting because of how they tie in to our general class discussions. Having already spoken about the reality of certain states becoming “majority-minority” as a class, and touching upon the possibility of America [as a whole] transitioning towards this demographic, I was glad to have read Sanjek’s article address this concept with with quantifiable projections (he says, according to one projection,  only 49% of children under 18 will be white by 2035).

Sanjek then goes on to discuss this transition in neighborhoods like Elmurst-Corona, and how the multi-ethnic exchanges in these communities are a result of both individual choices and government policies. Perhaps it is just in our progressive nature to move past pre-conceived racial notions, and we will continue to do so until America is almost wholly integrated. A debatably important objection to this, which Crowder points out in his article, is the dilemma of maintaining ethnic identity (not the only objection we have seen, others which have been language and job related), something which is much harder to do in an ethnically “open” environment where there is less cultural uniformity. In the case where the latter idea of separated communities prevails, which Sanjek calls “the worst [case],” society seems to be doomed to fall apart, or at least become much more ineffective, simply because we would be politically and economically divided. What’s really interesting about this argument is that Sanjek associates government intervention with successful integration, implying that by individual choice people would choose to be separate, which I personally think undermines the progressive, optimistic attitude of the rest of the article. In any case, it is difficult to predict which direction we will head in, especially on a national scale, in terms of integration and ethnic demographics. Hopefully, it will be “color-full” as opposed to “color-blind.”

I felt that this week’s readings fit perfectly after our trip to Jackson Heights last week.

I think the greatest thing I learned from the trip was that Jackson Heights is a lot more racially mixed than I thought it was; we saw Indian, Spanish, and even Korean influences in the neighborhood.  This same idea was reflected in this week’s readings.  Sanjek uses Corona as a classic example of such a neighborhood, and Rogers discusses how Afro-Carribean immigrants do not necessarily move to African American neighborhoods.  This, in turn, leads to the development of multiracial neighborhoods, particularly in Queens, as described by Sanjek.  Isn’t that exactly why the seminar 3 classes are visiting the neighborhoods of Jackson Heights and Corona?

I think this is a great, meaningful contrast to the Asian mindset we read about in previous weeks.  While many Asians move to a local Chinatown (in Manhattan, in Flushing, in Sunset Park) and remain there for the rest of their lives, the fact that certain West Indies and Afro-Carribean immigrants are not necessarily going to where they would be most comfortable is great.  This increase of diversity is good for the social environment of cities, and I think should be adopted in cities other than New York City.  NYC has always been known for its diversity, and consequently, its greater tolerance for racial groups, specifically minorities.  If other cities such as Chicago (which historically was a very racist city) encouraged such settling by minority groups as well, this could be a great way to increase tolerance and acceptance.

Immigrants moving to neighborhoods that are not necessarily where the majority of their racial group exist is (and thereby develop multiracial neighborhoods), I believe, a great trend in New York City life.  Foner mentions that there was a prejudice against Italians and Jews in the early 20th century, when they first moved into the United States.  While this same prejudice may now be present against minority groups such as the Afro-Carribeans, I believe that such prejudice, with time, will dissolve away, as it mostly did with the Jews and Italians.  Moving out of the comfortable neighborhoods and into more multiracial ones is a scary move, and can be risky, but it’s a way we could extend tolerance, hopefully beyond the limits of NYC.

Asian Americans can be seen as the paradigm of immigrants coming to the United States. Originally, the Asians were looked down upon as “yellow peril,” and were avoided, ostracized and shunned.  They were the subjects of exclusion and discrimination on the basis of race.  This began with the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.  This was the first, and only group to be excluded from immigrating to this country.  By 1917, this act was extended to all peoples of the south and east Asia.  It was not until 1943 that the Chinese gained the right to become citizens and in 1952, with the McCarran-Walter Act, naturalization was extended to Asians as a whole.

Nowadays Asian Americans are thought of as the “model minority.”    They are depicted as high achievers and are typically more accepted into the middle class than other racial minorities.   It is common to find Asian Americans in affluent suburbs and their children attend excellent institutions of learning.  The Asian story can be thought of as one of the success stories of American Immigration.  In less than one hundred and fifty years, Asians have turned their lot around.  Having faced discrimination, Asians rose above the hardships and successfully made a life for themselves in this country.

In my opinion, part of the change in perception from “yellow peril” to “acceptable neighbor” has to do with education.   Many of the Asians who came to this country recently came with college degrees, and were highly educated.  They came looking for well paying respectable jobs.  This is as opposed to the immigrants who came to the country with no skill set.  Also, many of the Asians have high expectations for their children, and want them to be highly educated.  This fits in well with the American idea of building yourself up through education.   Americans are happy to be associated with these people who have succeeded to build themselves up as a well-educated, well-respected group.

After reading these articles, I was slightly surprised that the African Americans and the West Indian Blacks did not integrate when they immigrated. However, after a while I realized that the culture difference between the two groups is vast and cannot be easily breached. Despite the fact that the two groups share the same skin color, the various traditions would not be easy to translate into American culture. This is common among other similar groups. For example, even though the Indian people from the West Indies come into contact with East Indian immigrants here in America, the difference in the cultures is quite obvious. Although some of the practices are similar, there are still a lot of traditions that aren’t shared. It’s also quite funny too because when someone from the West Indies is asked whether or not they are from India, they are slightly taken aback. It’s not that West Indians are ashamed of looking like an East Indian, it’s just that there is a desire to be differentiated from that group due to the vast culture difference. This is also seen when members of the Asian community are mistaken to be from a certain country (like calling someone that is Korean, Chinese).

I suppose this is the same with the African Americans and the Black West Indians. Maybe it is possible that they want to be differentiated from each other in order to preserve the purity of the culture that was brought over from their homeland. Whatever the reason, it is quite understandable because maintaining one’s culture in a new country that is constantly trying to get people to assimilate. Overall, humans want to emphasize the difference between “us” and “them.” Whether it’s a defense mechanism to keep us separated from others or to maintain the culture, somehow we can’t seem to avoid flocking together.

Judging from today’s wave of immigration, it seems as if the entire United States is gradually shifting towards a “majority minority” population. Gone with the last great wave is the large influx of white immigrants of European-ancestry. Now more than ever, individuals from all over migrate to the United States in hopes of greener pastures and better opportunities. Asians, West Indians, Hispanics ranging from Mexican to Caribbean islands, and Eastern Europeans have replaced the Jews and Italians who flooded the docks at the turn of the 20th century just like the Jews and Italians replaced the German and Irish migrants before them. Another consistency in this pattern is that each new group is generally greeted in an unwelcome manner by the native borns, almost the firm realization that they are not one of them; they are not American.

What is interesting about this pattern is that Italians and Jews who migrated to the United States at the turn of the century were generally perceived to be ‘the other’ and not associated with the white ethnicity. Yet through time and assimilation from both the immigrant and native born ends, these two groups have become recognized with the white ethnicity. It is hard to say whether the immigrants that comprise today’s great wave will follow in the footsteps in this regard because of the evident differences in physical characteristics. As Foner notes though, Asians, through continued increase in intermarriage and intermingling, might be able to be included in an expansion of the white ethnicity. Other new groups including the West Indians and darker-skinned Hispanics might become more and more associated with the African-American race (West Indians are already experiencing this trend) as the main divide regarding race remains between black and white.

Keeping these patterns in mind, instead of being met with hostility, different races and ethnicities should be more accepted for American society to continue to prosper as it shifts towards become a “majority minority” population. Moreover, people of different races should look to learn about new cultures and behaviors from their new neighbors to further blossom as a society. Obviously easier said than done. Roger Sanjek’s case study of the Elmhurst-Corona community in Queens, New York sheds some light on the benefits people receive from embracing new races rather than turning their shoulders towards their new neighbors.

Elmhurst-Corona, a predominantly white neighborhood in the 1960s, has transitioned to arguably “the most ethnically mixed community in the world,” by the 1990s. Various ethnic groups live amongst each other, not completely in unison, but in a way that allows the community to function properly for all residents. Things were not always this way of course. The initial influx of African-Americans to the Lefrak City section of the community was perceived as an influx of ‘welfare cases’ to the white residents living there despite their median income being higher than that of the white residents. Furthermore, the misconception of the new immigration groups being “illegal aliens” who were taking up spots in schools, residence, and many jobs without legal right to the land. Quality of life in the area was threatened throughout the period of transition as well, highlighted by the 1975 fiscal crisis that increased tensions between races.
However, through active membership in a community board to ensure peace and order in Elmhurst-Corona ranging from making sure a police station remained on a block to the continued use of a library guard, race tensions began to subside. With the commonality of their self-interests, residents of the area shifted more towards embracing ‘the other’ than rejecting them. Working bonds and even friendships have been formed as white women have offered tutoring sessions to young immigrant kids in exchange for a well-cooked ethnic meal from their family. With ties like these in place, Elmhust-Corona is likely headed towards a brighter future as a ‘majority minority’ neighborhood. Hopefully, America as a whole follows on the path.

After all, we’re in this same boat together.