Peopling of NYC 2012

The articles of Miyares, Hums, and Davila give insight into the transformation of neighborhood demographics in many Spanish communities in New York. The three categories of neighborhoods illustrated by Miyares are the dominant cultures, multiethnic cultures, and the invasion cultures.

The dominant Latin American cultures presented were that of the Dominicans in Washington Heights, Manhattan and the Puerto Rican community in East Harlem. These cultures, although not dominant cultures until recent history, have established a high representation of the neighborhood’s population through the ownership of businesses and the number of residents.

In places like Jackson Heights we have the more multiethnic neighborhoods that do not necessarily have one dominant ethnicity. Many businesses and homes display symbols of the owners’ home countries such as flags. In having a multiethnic neighborhood, diverse people do business with one another and form a new multiethnic identity.

The final neighborhood category discussed the “invasion” of new immigrants to an enclave neighborhood that they were not a part of. An example of this was the immigration of Mexican immigrants to East Harlem (El Barrio). East Harlem, primarily a Puerto Rican enclave has transitioned to a multiethnic neighborhood by the addition of Mexican immigrants. These immigrants opened up new businesses and have established themselves into a neighborhood that was primarily only one ethnicity.

These articles help us to understand the complexities of these neighborhoods, especially in their growth of representation. The neighborhoods themselves will always be there but the primary socioeconomic group living there changes depending on which groups are moving in.

What is the deal with these enclaves? As the semester goes on, we as a class delve further into this issue, and the more I read about it, the more it seems like these aren’t such bad things after all.

Hum especially won me over with his discussion of sunset park. The line that struck me the most I believe was when he said “The key dynamic in a neighborhood change is migration”. Migration, Hum believes, “refreshes urban pluralism even as assimilation draws others into the mainstream”. (Macionis and Parillo 1998:241) Different groups can exist! These neighborhoods are constantly changing hands, in with the new out with the old! Why, not so very long ago, sunset park was ruled by the Italians, the polish, etc. Now, a different group is revitalizing the area by moving in, and while only time can tell, I am sure eventually this group will leave and another group will come in!

The main argument against these enclaves are that these people aren’t assimilating into American culture, but in fact, they are just adding even more to American culture. These communities are NOT uni-ethnic, Sunset Park is comprised of so many different ethnicities.  Each one brings something different to the table.  These people are immersing themselves in their culture here in America, but they are also immersing native-born americans into that culture also!

It is sad that there are instances of racism in these places. For example, the attack on the thirty two year-old man by the two latinos. But, this led to something great, Sunset United. Honestly, it’s terrible that there is still racism, but by keeping ourselves segregated of our own free will and living in uni-ethnic communities, we promote it. The only way to really end it is to intermingle and to live among one another. Sunset Park’s diversity should shine as a beacon of hope to all of us that we can all live together, even if it may be only a distant glimmer.

This week’s readings, specifically Tarry Hum’s article, presented a different perspective on immigrant settlements and their development. Up until now, we have been reading about and discussing these types of neighborhoods, including enclaves, with, I believe, more negative than positive connotations (as one might tend to do due to the nature of these communities).

The description of Sunset Park seems to be quite contrary to that of other enclaves we have discussed, and thus establishes a seemingly alternative path to how they can develop. Sunset Park is a transforming multiethnic neighborhood, mostly Asian and Latino, with vibrant market small-business economies, though the majority are low skill workers. As opposed to the theory that enclaves are primary used as transitionary “stepping-stones” to assimilation into “American society (whatever that actually means),” Sunset Park, and other communities like it, offer up more benefits of these types of enclaves, in that they facilitate economic mobility, cultural continuity, and a strong communal life; “it provides privileged access to ethnic resources and opportunities (34).” Not only that, but this satellite enclave, and others like it have allowed New York to hold on to certain manufacturing businesses that would dissipate without them, so the benefits reach farther than just within the walls of the community.

Sunset Park has become a neighborhood of interest because of it’s seemingly contradictory nature as an enclave. Instead of being isolated and uni-ethnic, it sustains, and brings in, more Asians and Latinos, while continuing to urbanize. It’s interesting to see how the population will change, specifically keeping an eye on new immigrant groups.

The first thing I noticed was the similarities between the Mexican immigrants and the Filipino immigrants we read about in the articles on transnationalism. The Davila article mentions how Mexico is quite dependent on remittance (sending back of money) from its residents in America; Miyares’s article explains how America and Mexico maintain transnational ties with the sending of envlos and cargas (shipment of money and goods), similar to the sending of balikbayan boxes to the Philippines by Filipino immigrants living in America. This similarity illustrates the importance of transnationalism, as well as how many countries operate in similar manners (something, though, that we should be careful not to oversimplify).

From the articles, I found out that a group’s motives could contradict its desires. For example, the Puerto Ricans and Mexicans strive to make themselves culturally distinct from each other, yet do not hesitate greatly to ask the other for help in maintaining El Barrio as a “Latinized neighborhood.” For example, a Puerto Rican teacher assets that El Barrio will live on as a Latino neighborhood even if the Puerto Ricans move out because the Mexicans are “here to stay.” If we think about though, it is the natives of America who coin the terms “Latinos” and “Hispanics”, so it is interesting how groups moving to America fit themselves into the categories or relate to other cultures in their category even if they never would have while back in their home countries.

Also going back to the previous articles on whether or not to call certain areas Chinatowns, how could we call Sunset Park a Chinatown? Doing so “disregards all the other people still living in the community”, according to one of its residents. For example, the Puerto Ricans and Dominicans have also made their mark in Sunset Park.  It is also interesting how the garment and sweatshop industries in Sunset Parks. From the articles and various other media, we can see that many consider Asians to be the group to emulate in terms of work ethic and dedication to education- however, does that characterization also allow for many people to be taken advantage of, because their need for a job may outweigh their needs for suitable work conditions, and because they want to fit in? In the article on Mexican El Barrio, the Mexican immigrants experienced a similar situation in that they are hard-working and “good model citizens”, but are unable to make their voice heard in the decision-making politics of the area.

Anyone who lives within New York City knows how prominent diversity is within our city, but it doesn’t mean that we all live in perfect harmony. A number of communities isolate themselves from the rest of the city due to a common cultural identity, but in reality a majority of communities are made up of a variety of differing cultures due to a common socioeconomic status. Accompanied with these multicultural communities comes discrimination between ethnic minorities, the strive to achieve local authority, and the fight to make a mark on the community so that their presence is known. Each of the articles proves the existence of multicultural strife with the arrival of the Latino population, or the “Latino Invasion.”

Miyares goes into great detail on the arrival of Latinos over the past few decades, and how each new group seems to conquer a territory once controlled by a previous minority group. First it was the Cubans who controlled certain neighborhoods, then the Puerto Ricans took over, then the Dominicans, until finally the Mexicans seemed to be the final Latino group to invade the streets of New York City (the focus of Davila’s article). Group after group of immigrants introduced the emergence of multiethnic streetscapes in which multiple cultural groups would have to live in the same neighborhood and learn to adapt, assimilate, and more importantly get along with one another. Each cultural group wants to have an identity and feel like they have representation, which is typically hard to come by within these multiethnic communities. Tarry Hum’s article on Sunset Park, Brooklyn reveals how the Latino population and Asian population live together within one neighborhood. Unfortunately, Latinos feel that they are underrepresented due to Sunset Parks designation as another “Chinatown,” whereas the Asian population feels unwelcome due to discrimination from the Latino population. Each group wants to feel that they have some sort of power over the land, but doesn’t realize the importance each group has achieving the success of the community.

Today, enclaves still exist where there is a majority of one cultural group controlling the community, but I believe that this is not going to last. The future points towards these multiethnic communities inhabited by not one, but two, or maybe even three cultural populations that contribute to the cultural identities and successfulness of these neighborhoods. Hopefully, people will learn to work together and live peacefully instead of fighting with one another to make their presence known within a community. New York City is known for a plethora of different cultures that each makes their presence known by the impact they have on the city and that alone should be enough.

Living in New York, it is impossible not to notice the distinct enclaves around us.  As Tarry Hum states in her article, one of the most distinct enclaves in New York City is that of Sunset Park, Brooklyn, which today is made up of “fewer than one in five ” non-Hispanic white residents.  This area was mostly settled by Asians and Latinos, the former currently making up three quarters of the town’s population.

Being of European descent, I find it interesting reading about how much Sunset Park has changed over the years.  Hum points out that “until the 1980s, Sunset Park was largely a working-class neighborhood of European immigrants and their descendants.”  As previously stated, currently less than one fifth of the population is made up of non-Hispanic white residents.  This is probably due to the immigrants finding better jobs and living conditions elsewhere, along with the influx of Chinese and Latin American residents to Sunset Park around this time.  It only follows that the Europeans would want to move elsewhere to live in their own culture and form their own enclaves.

I strongly believe that New York City is completely different from the rest of America.  Someone from another part of the world may say that it is only the people and the technology that are different, but I disagree.  Someone who has lived in New York their whole life can say that it has many small, culturally diverse “cities” within itself which as a whole form New York—Chinatown and Little Italy, to name a couple.  Not many other cities across the United States can say the same for themselves.  One of the most unique things about New York is that although we have so many different enclaves, they each manage to preserve their own culture, which helps each of the areas maintain their individual diversity.  This allows Queens to be the most culturally diverse county in the world.

In The Changing Latinization of New York City, Miyares asserts that the appearance of Latino identity depends on the time period, the borough, the neighborhood, and the country of origin ⎯contrary to the idea that they automatically assimilate toward a Caribbean culture. Miyares describes the three types of Latino streetscapes in New York City. The enclave streetscape is dominated by a single group whereas a multiethnic streetscape adapts consistently as a reflection of demographic changes, incorporating other groups. The last type Miyares mentions is a streetscape of invasion, in which new immigrants take advantage of the neighborhood and situations to establish an economic banner street. In El Bario the influx of Mexicans is seen as a threat to the Puerto Ricans who moved there before; this can be characterized as a streetscape of invasion. Mexicans have countered anti-immigrant attitudes by presenting themselves as “worthy and hard-working immigrants.” They have taken over ownership and operation of many local businesses. As the a Davila piece states, “ Mexicans were in fact seen as agents of gentrification.”
Hum’s article describes the demographics of Sunset Park, which is a multi-ethnic neighborhood made up of immigrants from the Caribbean, Latin America, and Asia. New immigrants coming into a neighborhood can actually help the community.The flow of Latino and Asian immigrants has revamped the declining neighborhood. Hum’s states that Sunset Park is considered an enclave but there are certain qualities in Sunset Park that may limit its ability to benefit from the assets of an enclave. One issue is whether the restructuring of the local neighborhood economies will leave room for new immigrants to be incorporated and to progress. Another issue is that studies on racially diverse neighborhoods show that they have conflict over political representation and neighborhood redevelopment.
While it is known that New York is very diverse, based on these neighborhoods the question presents itself as to whether or not we are truly integrated. People may inhabit the same area spatially, but they are far from being integrated.It is natural for people to associate with people of the same culture, but in order for a neighborhood to advance these groups need to set their differences aside and focus instead on what they have in common for the overall benefit of the community.

Throughout the readings, but particularly in Hum, we again encounter that concept of enclaves. Hum analyzes the enclave by defining it as an area of “self-segregation, mutual support and solidarity, and upward mobility” (p.34) for its residents. However, Hum counters that this is now debatable as the economy becomes more and more globalized and neighborhoods (such as Queens) see multi-ethnic communities coming together and living in a concentrated area. Businessmen and entrepreneurs are seeking to maximize their profits and expand their businesses to other groups throughout New York City, as well as tapping into the transnational economy with which so many immigrants are involved.

In terms of American society as a whole, specifically New York City, the big question remains as to whether enclaves are more beneficial, or whether it is better that everybody mush together and create a culturally pluralistic society with different ethnicities living in the same area. I would argue that it depends on the needs of the ethnic group in question. If Hispanics have a cultural need or desire to continue speaking their native Spanish or eating in their typical home country restaurants surrounded by their co-ethnic friends, then it makes sense for them to stick together and live in El Bario, Washington Heights, or whatever enclave community they choose that makes them happy with their life here in New York or elsewhere in America. If, like the Asians, they have a desire to branch out and expand their skills or business elsewhere, then it makes sense for them to blend with other ethnicities in different neighborhoods and create an ethnically diverse landscape. Either way, both models are currently happening and both are contributing immensely to the development and diversity of New York City.

In the Hum and Devila readings, I found it quite interesting that two cultures can live together in the same neighborhood despite being very different. However, as the pieces progressed, it wasn’t hard to guess that there would be some problems between the two groups. Although it would be ideal for people to all get along and live together in harmony, I find that it’s inevitable for there to be a struggle between “us” and “them.” As humans we all tend to group together with people who are similar and because of this innate self-defense mechanism, problems often arise. People often try to protect their culture and maintain the homogeneity of their little society within America. Nevertheless, since this is America, there will always be a mixing within communities because of immigration. Hopefully, people can learn to see the diversity found here in New York City and live with it as a norm.

From the Miyares article, it was fascinating to see how the Latino subpopulations shifted over the years. For example, at first the Cuban population was once dominant, but then the Puerto Rican population started to grow and eventually took dominance. In addition to this, these groups were able to leave their mark in their neighborhoods through the incorporation of colors and symbols on into the “economic streetscape.” This is very much like the South Richmond Hill area where a lot of people from Caribbean descent live because as you walk down the streets you would be able to see Hindu Jandi flags or stores that have titles that start with “Little Guyana.” I guess it is only natural for people to try to incorporate their background into the new American culture as a way to remember their roots and contribute to the highly diverse New York City atmosphere.

Article 2 from this week’s reading described ethnic enclaves as “a superior strategy for immigrant economic and social integration,” when describing the area of Sunset Park. I read this line in the reading just thinking, “really?!”  While this is true in some aspects, I wouldn’t go about calling enclaves as a “superior” method.  In many ways, enclaves are just a superior strategy for economic and social integration of immigrants in their own enclave…not American society.  Many people living in enclaves never assimilate into American society; rather, they maintain the culture they held back home…just in America.

I hold that becoming engaged in life outside ethnic enclaves is actually a much better way to achieve economic and social integration, if this is indeed what an immigrant desires.  It may be harder to adjust at first, but worth it in the long run.  Do you think Dominican politicians such as Guillermo Linares and Ydanis Rodriguez would have been able to enter the political front and facilitate change had they remained in Washington Heights?  Their integration into American society has been through their involvement in American politics, and politics is just one method of getting involved.

In this similar respect, I believe that Mexicans’ involvement in organizations such as UNIMEX and CECOMEX, based in America, are another great method of integrating into American society while retaining one’s culture.  Mexicans involved are stretching beyond El Barrio, or their respective enclave, and reaching out, which is another great way to become involved in American life: social activism.  They must leave their ethnic enclave, but not the Mexican ethnicity.  Had all Mexicans stayed in their enclave, would they have been able to advance Mexican life in America?  Where would the Mexican Independence Day Parade be today?

Therefore, I don’t believe that ethnic enclaves are the superior method for immigrants’ integration into American life.  Rather, stretching beyond the limits of the enclave and physically leaving it is a better method.  Immigrants most certainly can retain their connection to the enclave, but in order to integrate into American society, and further America’s acceptance of their culture, stepping out of the comfort zone must be done as well.