Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i've always known Washington Heights to be Irish in the 40's 50's 60's. Coogan's on Broadway is a well known Irish establishment.
Well like Guy pointed out a lot of different ethnic groups have dominated Wash Heights over the years. The Greeks, the Irish, Jews, Dominicans in the 80' to present.
Coogan's may have been there, but the dominant group was German Jews that arrived after World War 2. The Dominicans started coming into the area in the 60's mainly as building supers and at that time supers had the power to rent the apts out. More and more Dominicans rented available apts. The Jews were all gone by the early 1970's.
I'm going to help put this into perspective for all. It's long, so prepare yourselves. It's going to be a little opinionated and controversial. I don't mind freely expressing. I understand it has been a while since anyone who has posted, but what I'm going to say is realistic. Hopefully by the end of this message, none of you will be living in your ''own world.''
The question brought up was what is the future of Washington Heights? Well, it's really got the same answer as any other area. Yes, gentrification is one obvious result. There are many more simple things that all of you don't realize. You block them out, because you guys aren't seeing outside the box.
In general, all land in New York City and it's area is expensive. I've said on other forums, I'm not suprised more people don't live in the swamps of the meadowlands in New Jersey. Washington Heights and the Bronx have been a place that has gone through different waves of cultural transition.
We all need to understand that history repeats itself though. The biggest question at the end of the day is simple. What good can be brought out of it? What is the use of being Dominican, Puerto Rican, Italian or anything, if it's nothing more than a title?
During the first couple decades of the century, the primarily poor inner-city Catholics were Italian immigrants. During the 50's and 60's, Puerto Rican migration served that role. This slowed during the 70's for the same reason as now. The economy was shot and the country's reputation wasn't so hot after the Vietnam War and watergate. As others noted on here, Dominican immigration was at it's peak in the 80's and 90's.
Similarly to Dominican immigration now, Puerto Rican immigration slowed down by the early 70's. New York City was 10% of Puerto Rican descent in 1970. As of 2000, the city was 9.9%. If you took a median year of Puerto Rican migration to now, that would be comparable to Italian-Americans in the late 50's or early 60's.
Well, what happened during that era? People began to move to the suburbs. People lost their ethnic title and working-class ways. Women started going to work and fertility rates dropped. This same thing is now going on now with Dominican-Americans. Another big thing was that people were becoming less religion. All three groups are predominantly Roman-Catholic. Although they may still be by title, few are actually ''religious'' in this liberal era.
The only advantage to preserving the present day culture is that it's doubtful a new wave of foreign influence is to take over the place. It's more like to see other people in Manhattan looking for a cheaper lifestyle. They aren't kidding anyone if they believe that Washington Heights or upper Manhattan is really Manhattan though. Although people have a phobia of believing New York crime is high when it really isn't compared to other major cities, crime will only decrease through the rise of expense.
This is about survival of the fittest. I know it sounds mean, but it's true. The only way to snap out of working-class ways is to go to college and make money. Immigrants will be forced to do this. If you can't afford to live in New York City, you don't have the right to live there.
Sooner than most of you think, all housing projects will be gone in New York. The land is worth too much here. Many housing projects will be changed to lower-income buildings. Many lower-income buidlings will be transformed into higher rent apartments. Ask Mo Vaughn that.
Any adult who lives in the projects and doesn't work has no right to live in New York. They should and will get rid of things that waste money (i.e. housing projects, an extra amount of useless cops, ect). This will definitely come about if more eonomically conservative mayors are to come. If you can't make money, you shouldn't have the right to have children. A man or woman who isn't significantly disabled or elderly who doesn't at least try to work is a loser. They really have no reason to live. This is not socialism.
In general, the day you move to a suburb is the day you lose all your heritage. The same statement could go to those who mix out. You denaturalize and dillute yourself. Regardless of the more than understandable motives, you sell yourself out for what you believe is a more comfortable life. It's not bad, but you can't pretend like you hold onto your old ways. Do not call people of Dominican descent Dominicans if they left their enclaves or didn't even marry a Dominican.
The only people who truly have heritage are people who are either from those countries or take good out of it. For example, groups such as many Asian nationalities, Middle Easterners and West Indians have done this. Many West Indians have come with small business aspirations. There money is practically worth more than ours now. For Asians and Middle-Easterners, they have better education than this country. People from China and India move to this country for economic and political freedom. Many institute more educational obedience into their children.
America is a country that bases their success on individualism. Wouldn't putting importance on being a member of a group be collectivism? Remember, this isn't the 1920's. No one helps out anyone. If you believe anyone is going to help you because you are a member of the same nationality, you are adorable. In this day of age, how would you even know if the person wasn't lying? It's every man for themselves. No one is just going to give you a decent-paying job because they like you. Although everyone believes their families are so precious, few families are willing to ''take care'' of you financially.
Many Jews have higher economic success levels than people of other religions. Much of this is due to a tradition of educational obedience. Plus, regardless of how religious any of these immigrants are, a religion is always a good thing. Religion is a thing you can individually hold onto.
Many Dominican and other Latin-American groups have come to this country less financially set in this modern era. A major reason for this is that there is less educational necessities to make it in those foreign countries. Many didn't graduate high-school. Many are too old to be able to afford to go to college.
The fertility rates are higher rates. Many came when the U.S. dollar was worth a lot more, dilluting anything in the immigrants bank accounts. A woman will have a difficult time having a career if they have to raise four children. The difference between being lower-middle class and middle-class in America is usually a female spouses salary.
So the biggest question for Dominican immigrants and the children of them is what good can be brought out of being of their background? The thing that could help give a leg up on society is bilingualism. The only things that are less influential is Catholicism (not many are religious) and food.
Well, how many do keep the language at an educated level? Some do. However, a lot don't. For Puerto Rican immigrants, many didn't hold onto this. If you don't believe me, talk to someone whos my age in NY (I'm 19). The best you might be able to get with half of people is broken Spanish. Is that useful? Could you bring that into the business world? Would a retail store promote destroying the reputation of their store with ''street slang?'' Basically, if you aren't confident enough to speak Spanish in an important business meeting, it's useless.
Many Dominican-Americans have held onto the language. However, just like any other group's history will show you: the more years go on, the more it goes away. Dominican immigration has slown down. The United States is not a place worth coming to anymore. Our reputation internationally has been destroyed by the Iraq war. We're trillions of dollars in debt. Our dollar isn't worth anywhere near where it used to be. We're about to enter a recession. The only thing that will keep the U.S. immigration continuing is this country's low standards.
America believes the more people, the better. Many don't want to join the military anymore. The more people, the bigger military. Even if America doesn't have the resources, they love expanding on their suburbs. Truthfully, I don't understand why anyone gets upset with illegal immigration, because there really is no such thing. The only illegal thing is crossing the border. Most illegals didn't even do this. More come along the lines of now renewing their visas. The problem is the U.S. not demanding college education, immediate affluence or perfect health like Canada and Western Europe.
Recently, Canada made a rule not allowing people with AIDS in there country. It may sound mean or discriminative, but it's in the best interests of Canadian citizens. They don't want an excessive amount of people, because resources like Universal Health Care would wash away. We give out too many visas and citizenship. What Dominican immigrants have that Puerto Rican immigrants didn't have though is that the same resources weren't availible. The spanish language wasn't as highly regarded upon in the education system.
So you've basically asked, what will be the face of the Washington Heights area? The answer is a normal Manhattan community. With the exception of the world of ''technicalities'', it will in no way be an ''ethnic'' neighborhood. I understand America's low standards of what ''looking different'' means, but that won't even exist. It's not like not looking the same as everyone else doesn't already exist in Manhattan. People's ties to the Dominican Republic and other foreign countries will go away. People will be forced to assimilate and become educated unless they want to live lower-middle class lifestyles.
Being of Dominican descent will be useless (if it isn't already). This isn't against Dominicans, but is the same for almost all. Many Dominican-Americans have refused to acknowledge their African ancestry which won't be ignored by other Americans. If they plan on continuing to live in a city setting, more money will be necessary.
If seeing a very small bodega brings a smile to your face, I'm happy for you. I doubt to people of Italian descent (which there is no identification or feeling for anymore), a pizzeria would do that. In a few decades, don't be suprised if European and African-Americans are the cookers of Chinese and Mexican food.
For a family of four to own a respectable apartment in Manhattan, house in Queens, Brooklyn, the Bronx or affluent suburbs, an income of up to 150K+ will be necessary. This People come to this country to give their children better lives, which unfortunetly means losing their past. If they didn't like that, no one told them to come. What you can take out from the past that can improve the future is what any present day Dominican immigrant parent should do. Dominicans still have a shot at preserving the language and culture. I wish all took this seriously, but many just aren't that interested.
Anyone who still believes Puerto Ricans, Italian, Irish or any other group still exists is either an idiot or dillusional. Open your eyes. It's obsolete. You should live in a history book. It'd be nice if things were like that, but an unnecessary title is nothing more than useless irritation.
I've heard people use the word ''Hispanic'' or ''Latino'' on here. Just stop it. Don't say that. Believe it or not, the rest of the world says what sounds simple. They say ''Latin American.'' It's a geographical description. Not an ethnic one. There is no ethnicity ''Hispanic'' or ''Latino.'' They have diversity from different continents just like this country on the Western Hemisphere.
Even if you were unintellectual enough to use that ignorant term, you'd just be providing a quicker method to getting demolishing Latin American heritage. Think about it. When European-Americans lost their heritage is when they started being regarded as the white generalization. By saying the term Hispanic, you'd be indirectly promoting the combination of several countries different cultures. By doing that, you're putting it into a blender and getting rid of the old world.
Although there is national pride like any other country, those terms don't exist in Latin America. People don't believe in things that steal their individualism there. It's insultive to them. There is an understanding for who is white, black, of indigenous ancestry or a mix of those in those countries.
Little importance on being a member of any of those groups though. It has it's good and bad. A good is that hostility has went down. A bad thing is that there is still a societally influenced economic hierarchy for the whites that won't go away. I do believe that problems do go ignored such as the bad taste of slavery. You'd never see a movie like Roots created in Latin America.
How many have taught any of you that term Hispanic was created in 1970? Few. How many take interest into challenging this unnatural societal implementation of the U.S. government? Few. Think about it. Why was it created? Why is it so little discussed? If the truth came out about the implementation of the term, people's eyes would open and the integrity of it would dilapidate.
The term Hispanic was created for a few crafty reasons. The most minor reason was demographical data. I can understand that, but the integrity is limited. Not enough believe in the term to prevent the U.S. Census from being incompetent. They say places like Mississippi are of more Latin-American descent than Philadelphia's New Jersey suburbs. There are bigger reasons though.
The second reason was due to prevent impoverished generations of Americans. The government wanted to groom their own puppies. They knew that Latin American immigrants would have no reason to hold anything against the American government. Similarly to America, Latin American countries are used to corruption, are Christian and value Democracy. The women who immigrate here have higher fertility rates providing more citizens for this country. So in simple terms, Mexican immigrants are like a division one basketball player who averaged triple-doubles.
Truthfully, anyone who lives poor because there parents are poor should be ashamed of themselves in this era. The only areas where the following generations of Latin American immigrants are poor, are places where everyone is poor (i.e. southern Texas). Anyone who is born in this country may as well say there family has been here a century at minimum, because the economic and education oppurtunities are there.
The big era for waves of Mexican immigration on the West Coast, Cuban immigration in South Florida and a way to speed up the immigrational poverty Puerto Rican immigrants had to endure in the Northeast was the reason for this. Other groups like Asians and West Indians came much less. They come with more money and education. No one has needed to financially assist them.
The term Hispanic helped create programs like Finanical AID, work-visa programs and ways to find immigrants rent-control buildings. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but we have a lot of Americans who haven't taken care of. All of this has come to backfire the U.S.
Just look at Hurricane Katrina. Most of the people who had to suffer that hurricane were suffering long before that. Most of the people who had to endure this catastrophe have had their ancestors in this country 250 to 300 years. Their ancestors didn't even voluntarily come to this country. Shouldn't it be an obligation for the United States government to help these people live better lives, rather than recruiting an abundance of future middle-class Americans?
The immigrant era only lives in the immigrant era. If your child is a product of the American education system (especially an affluent one like NJ, Connecticut or California), than it shouldn't be a shock that the children of Mexican immigrants in southern California are commonly owning homes that are worth 750K.
The United States has had a way of ignoring United Nations quotas though. Asia respects them. Most of the world lives in Asia and many want out. Asians, Middle Easterners, Eastern Europeans and Africans move to a larger amount of different places. They go to Canada, Western Europe, Australia, South Africa, ect.
Most Latin American immigrants only choose America and occasionally Canada. Basically, Mexico needs to dump out people and America believes they need people. America has gotten the worst impression of Mexico because the most rural and poorest have come. The same thing could be said to Italian immigrants 100 years ago. The American media wants people to believe Mexico is like hell or the ''third world''.
In reality though, even though Mexico isn't so hot compared to the U.S., compared to other parts of the world, are they really that bad? I'd say Mexico is still along the middle. I think it's safe to say that finding food in a rural town in Mexico isn't like a rural village in Central Africa.
Mexico did what the U.S. hopefully doesn't. They printed so many dollars that the value of their dollar disintegrated. They have too many people in that country for their resources. For those who live in places like Mexico City, the need to immigrate to the U.S. is little. If they did, it would be under similar circumstances to a modern-Western European.
Than there is the third reason. This is the most controversial and interesting one. This was to scapegoat African-American poverty. In capitalism, you need an icon and a dog. An educated suburban white male has emerged as the most popular icon of American wealth. Poor inner-city blacks have represented the dog. Is it a coincedence that this term was created only a few years after the Civil Rights movement?That was Latin-American immigrants.
America knew they could shift the attention to the other major group (that was poor and anticipated large numbers). Do any of you remember when the media was freaking out about ''Hispanics'' becoming the new largest minority in 2000? Why didn't they also discuss that the U.S. Census changed that Hispanic wasn't actually a race starting in 2000 though? Isn't that a little crafty and open-ended selectivity?
They did that for a reason. It is projected that the U.S. will be 50% European-American (non-Spaniard descended) in 2050. It is projected that one quarter of America will be of Latin-American descent. There will be increasing numbers of Asians and other groups. However, America is still projected to be 75% white (similar to now) if you counted people of Spaniard descent. The only thing that will change is that Spaniard will be the most common European ancestry, not German. Don't you see how the government protects these interests?
African-Americans fought for their rights up until the civil rights movement. Ever since than, it's been an individual battle. There is no such thing as any community who will economically hold your hand. That is the way how it should be. Many African-Americans have progressed, but many haven't. Not enough black individuals have been big enough men to change a horrible lifestyle. Many have lacked parenting skills. Many have refused education and real jobs.
This issue isn't as bad in the south because the competition isn't as hard and a better value-system exists. This isn't a black issue though, because African and West Indian immigrants (who are darker) do just fine in this country. They've integrate into middle-class America and don't use history as a defense-mechanism to success.
America knew no matter what they did, slavery could never be forgiven. The issue of affirmation action went against individualism and did little. That is why quotas have been determined to be unconstitutional. All it did was give lower-middle class whites a reason to be upset and poor blacks to pity themselves. The American government needed people to feel bad for Latin American immigrants. The media has done the dirty work for them.
This is why you always see the terms Black and Hispanic tag-teamed in stories in the media. By doing this, they're trying to convince you that these group's problems are similar. By doing this, they want you to believe that people of Latin American descent are ''different.'' During the post-60's era, America only thinks with their eyes. It's because creativity dwindled and isolation came about. Americas became a materialistic people that came to lack intellect.
Because many Latin American immigrants either look or sound different from mainstream white America, the sympathy was capable of being drawn. If white America was told they were ''different'', many would come to the conclusion it was due to oppression African-Americans had to endure. In no ways are African-American and Latin American immigrants economic situations similar.
The battle for Latin Americans economic struggle is minimal compared to poor black Americans. It's something all immigrants have shared. What has kept poor blacks behind is there reluctancy to change. Why should anyone feel bad for Latin American immigrants though? Because the immigrant who comes doesn't have any money?
Didn't Spain own more slaves than any other European country? Patheticly, that history may seem to wipe away when you come to this country, but it doesn't internationally. Isn't 80% of Puerto Rico white? Being that most white Puerto-Ricans ancestors arrived in the 1600's and 1700's just like African slaves, wouldn't that mean at one point or another they owned slaves? The American media would rather promote that people are of multiple ancestries if they are a member of that ancestry, even though they usually aren't.
So basically, by those of you who have said the term Hispanic or Latino I've seen on this thread represents an indication that the unintellectual disgraseful term created by the Nixon administration is working. I hope I've answered your question to the diminishing modern-day Washington Heights culture. I hope I've also helped describe that the term Hispanic is a dangerous political tool that will be unchalleneged ignorance.
That is a very well-thought and well-written post but I must respond to your contention that a Hispanic or Latino ethnic identity does not exist.
I was born and raised in this country and identify as a white American. My family is just as assimilated as any other. However, I am of partial Hispanic ancestry, speak Spanish fluently, have visited Spain/Italy (the countries of my ancestors) several times, and practice many cultural traditions with their roots in Latin Europe. I identify very strongly with being of Latin heritage and am very unlike these "Puerto Rican" or "Dominican" teenagers born and raised in New York who have never been to their parents' homeland and can barely utter a sentence in Spanish. I do not ethnically identify with people whose only connections to the Hispanic world are the gaudy Puerto Rican flag necklace around their necks and the few words in Spanish they know. I identify with the small minority of young people of Latin origin who speak the language of their ancestors and continue to practice cultural traditions with their roots in Latin Europe. I also identify in general with young people of any color who were born and raised in this country, as I was. I identify with being American in general, but I proudly keep a Latin ethnic identity that transcends borders. Please consider that although the majority of "Puerto Rican" or "Dominican" young people have lost their cultural ties to the homeland of their ancestors, there exists a small minority of people who preserve their connections to the Latin world and rightfully identify themselves as "Latin," "Hispanic," or "Latino."
PS - I agree that the overwhelming majority of Italian-Americans are not very "Italian," but I have met a handful of young American-raised people of Italian origin who retain a very strong Italian ethnic identity, including speaking the language, passing down stories and recipes, etc.
I'm sure there are some valid points in there and that you are saying something about the original topic but it comes off as a series of independent paragraphs strung together by non-sequiters. Although your diatribe about the disintigration of Dominican and Hispanic culture holds some bearing on the future of Washington Heights I think your starting point about real estate values, geography, and income is more relevant to the conversation.
''I was born and raised in this country and identify as a white American. My family is just as assimilated as any other. However, I am of partial Hispanic ancestry, speak Spanish fluently, have visited Spain/Italy (the countries of my ancestors) several times, and practice many cultural traditions with their roots in Latin Europe. I identify very strongly with being of Latin heritage and am very unlike these "Puerto Rican" or "Dominican" teenagers born and raised in New York who have never been to their parents' homeland and can barely utter a sentence in Spanish. I do not ethnically identify with people whose only connections to the Hispanic world are the gaudy Puerto Rican flag necklace around their necks and the few words in Spanish they know. I identify with the small minority of young people of Latin origin who speak the language of their ancestors and continue to practice cultural traditions with their roots in Latin Europe. I also identify in general with young people of any color who were born and raised in this country, as I was. I identify with being American in general, but I proudly keep a Latin ethnic identity that transcends borders. Please consider that although the majority of "Puerto Rican" or "Dominican" young people have lost their cultural ties to the homeland of their ancestors, there exists a small minority of people who preserve their connections to the Latin world and rightfully identify themselves as "Latin," "Hispanic," or "Latino
PS - I agree that the overwhelming majority of Italian-Americans are not very "Italian," but I have met a handful of young American-raised people of Italian origin who retain a very strong Italian ethnic identity, including speaking the language, passing down stories and recipes, etc.''
Just to start off the message, I want to make one thing clear to everyone. I didn't say this to insult anyone. I said this to bring a realization. I am of Italian descent with a little Spanish (Spain), so it would be impossible for to me to be bias.
As far as being of ''partial Hispanic'' ancestry, I know you aren't say that term to be politically incorrect, but the term is an icon of ignorance. It's not as if the world recognizes this term. If you have lived in internationally, you should know exactly what I'm talking about. It's amazing how much the word ''Hispanic'' could have meaning a few blocks away from the U.N. in Manhattan, yet none in the U.N. My ancestry is almost identical to yours. You don't have a bad of looking at this, but few think outside the box like yourself and I.
A big thing to understand is that this term is commonly used in the New York media. I've described this on other boards. I have lived in a few different places. I grew up in Staten Island, lived in the Tampa area for a few years and now live in southwest New Jersey (in the Philly area).
One thing I've noticed is that the New York media is they're the only city that is interested in using the term Hispanic. They use it to physically describe people and just in the simple context all the time. The Philadelphia media never uses it. The Tampa media rarely uses it. It's difficult for people to understand this, but New York City has a system of institutionalized racism. It might seem awkward considering the city's diversity, but it's true. Truthfully, it is very ironic because white Christians of non-mediterranean ancestry are only about 11 percent of New York. In the United States, that is about 60 percent.
Now, all of you who are baseball fans, do me a favor. Say you're a Mets fan (less people are willing to travel as far for the Yankees), put on the game. I guarantee you that the only people the camera man points on are ''very white.'' Especially innocent white babies who eat ice cream who really represent that 11%. I been to a load of Mets games. Believe me, it's not like that there. I agree that all of America has a way of doing that, but the media can really make it seem like it's Montana at Shea Stadium.
Most whites in New York are of either Jewish, Italian or some sort of descent that isn't as common in the United States. In New York City, being of that descent is like being of Scottish or German descent in Alabama or Wisconsin though.
Truthfully, New Yorkers aren't that racist. It's the media that eggs it on. They egg it on to create social divisions between upper-class whites and lower-class whites. There are many more educated whites with money in this city. New York City has a similar Euro-American Jewish population as they do a Euro-American catholic population (near 20%). 50 to 60 years ago, Jewish people were most financially set than Catholics. Over the years though, the gap has trimmed through education, level of expense and suburbanization.
Obviously, the media is of mostly educated whites. This is why it may seem that the New York media is largely Jewish. You could never even say the word Jewish in this city without someone saying you're anti-semitic. The media loves separate the identity between the educated and non-educated though. It's because it prevents upper-class whites from looking like trash. It also provides them a source of entertainment. They also provide their low-class readers (i.e. the New York Post) something they can handle. Although there aren't many non-affluent low-class uneducated whites in the city (one good example would be the south shore of Staten Island, but many low-class whites are scattered around and often old), they can provide a nuisance for the image of upper-class whites.
Think about it. How many times have all of you seen articles in the New York Daily News about how the Fire Department doesn't have black people? Isn't that common knowledge in New York? Does it need to be reinforced monthly? They have written articles about how there are so many more white teachers than there are white students in the board of ed. Did we not know this? Why are they doing this?
My philosophy is that the educated media has two children. One, is lower-class whites. The other are poor blacks and immigrants. Being that no one would hate their parent, they fight eachother instead. Another word always used in the New York media is the word ''minority.'' That is where my tag-teaming theory comes in. The New York media makes them as if they're rivals which has promoted collectivism. The upper-class whites have followed the ideas of individualism.
Therefore, if you were to insult white people, they probably wouldn't care. It'd probably be amusing at best. For a low-class white though, they're taught that being white is apart of their pride. You could relate to it to the days of the minstrel shows. The only people who went there were low-class whites who take satisfacation in humiliating blacks who never did anything to them. It made them feel superior. Upper-class whites aren't prejudice, because they know better. What kind of educated man of any background would be a bigot?
Hypothetically speaking along the lines of the example I gave of affirmative action, even if an educated white male was a bigot, what would he say if someone who wasn't white were to take his job? He'd say it's time for me to get better. A low-class white who depends on a job like the Sanitation department as a scapegoat for entering the real world would whine like a baby and likely have some racial remarks to use behind their sibling's (black or immigrant) back.
If you don't believe me, maybe the rich white guy who loves to disgrase blacks (Al Sharpton) proves my point. He has made a career off of this system of institutionalized racism. Why do you think he's done so well in New York? Cities that went through desperate measures that could have even used some helped have told him to get the hell out. Mayor Nagin knew he was a trouble maker and wanted him no where near his city. He tried making an appearance in Philadelphia disgrasing an under-populated police department (that has had multiple cops get killed in the last couple months and more homicides than days in every year for the past decade - remember it's population is only the size of the Bronx). New Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter kindly said today we don't need you. You should see what Larry Elder has to say about him.
No educated black man wishes he had the right to live. He embarrasses every black person who has ever worked hard. He has given every poor black person an extra reason to pity themselves. The American media (especially the New York media) has taught all people that black people are only aloud to think about black issues. They teach you like they'd have aneurysm if they thought about anything differently. When was the last time any of you heard about Al Sharpton talking about anything that wasn't race (with the exclusion of him pocketing campaigning funds)?
The New York media allows him to be iconic in the disgrase of putting down lower-class blacks. A guy like Bill Cosby might not sound nice, but would be much more helpful to the African-American community in the regard that he's saying it's the poor people's fault that they're poor. The media basically wants you to believe that if they do something wrong, they didn't know any better. They'd never say it in those words. They'd be crafty about it. One minute later the word oppression would be blurted out. They're kind of like the media's adopted child who's treated better than their uneducated hostile white child.
I've also noticed that the New York media has literally transformed and re-constructed the definition of the word bias. In America, the word means basing your information on your own situation.
I have watched all different channels of news in New York. I remember watching one story in which they got so in detail, they described possibilities. They described someone as a ''light-skinned Hispanic or white male.'' Another time, they said ''dark-skinned Hispanic male or black male.'' In America, that equals white male or black male. People don't judge what they don't know. Plus, how are you suppose to know what being Hispanic looks? Cameron Diaz? Sammy Sosa? Frankie Muniz? Jose Contreras? There is no clear definition. It would be like saying someone can look American.
Right off the bat in this situation we know he wasn't speaking spanish (or in a heavy accent) if they acknowledged the possibility of him not being ''Hispanic.'' Hypothetically speaking, if there was integrity in the term ''Hispanic'', how would you identify that?
Although I don't believe in racial categorizations, different physical appearances have come in different regions of the world. Generally in America and the world, there are whites, blacks and Asians. People of indigenous ancestry (i.e. half of Mexican ancestry) can blur the lines, but that doesn't constitute for a new category. It's not as if Americans are sophicticated enough to handle that. You'd think New Yorkers would be, but most actually aren't. Do you know how many missing people's information could lead to them not being found or criminals from being caught because of this permission of ignorance?
At least in America for this term of ignorance, the goals I've presented are obvious. Why exactly does the New York media go this far? Why is this racism being pumped into people? For those who have only lived in the New York area in your lives, a lot of America doesn't know about your local news. Many don't know about the Crown Heights riots, or the Howard Beach or Benson Hurst incidents. Most Americans never heard of Sean Bell. Even though people where I live is only about an hour and a half from mid-town Manhattan, they have no clue who he is, even though it was so recent.
Going back to your situation, I commend you for your ability to speak Spanish fluently. For someone of Italian and Spaniard ancestry that was lives in the United States, that is rare. I'm sure many people in Spain and Italy know the opposite language well. The languages and much of the culture is similar. The only language I speak is English. A big problem with one quote you made is by actually acknowleding people of Puerto Rican-American ancestry to have ethnic identity.
Eventually, Dominican-Americans will be similar. For those who are white or black within both those populations will enter the norm of the white (like Russian immigrants) and black identity's (like West Indians) of New York. For those who are mixed of both will have a confusing identity, but will be regarded as mixed. Regardless of how they're racially interpreted, it will play no role in the preservation of the culture of their immigrant ancestor's though.
I understand there is a small minority within every population that has retained something. The longer an ancestry has been in a country though, the smaller that population gets. For yourself, you could only conserve your culture in a small clique. If you opened it up, it could become corrupted. In order to identity this properly, a non-bias mindset is necessary. If you asked someone of Italian background what being Italian meant, they might just give you a stupid answer like a rich Gotti boy or a blue-collared person.
You get a different vibe from everyone. Within people of Puerto Rican ancestry, there are different feelings for what being white is. One who watched too much MTV growing up might think a 500 pound stupid Fat Joe (who grew up wealthy) is what being Puerto Rican is (even though he's mixed). They'd sometimes act as if they were appauled someone called them white. Than on the other hand, a racist NYPD cop of Puerto-Rican descent who has arrested many hostile African-Americans in Brooklyn, might take it as an insult if you challenged their whiteness.
It's really stupid when someone of Puerto Rican ancestry who is white doesn't consider themselves white (especially if they express this), but I guess they only do that because it prevents them from feeling like their heritage is even getting more useless. Believe me when I say that current Latin American immigrants do not acknowledge or recognize Puerto Rican-American heritage.
Some people take your approach of appreciating their Latin-European ancestry. That isn't a bad method, but it can be spoiled by some. Some just do it as a defense-mechanism for their distaste of Latin America's mixed blood. Ties between Spain and Latin America are sour. The best approach would be to unbiasly acknowledge history as it is and be quiet and conservative about their background.
Although any political method with corrupt a heritage, Cuban-Americans are one of the few significant Latin-American ancestries that actually used their background's usefully. If any of you have kept up on the Florida primary, you'd notice the recognition the candidates have given for those of Cuban descent in south Florida a political identity. What candidate has ever done that for people of Puerto Rican or one individual Latin-American ancestry in the New York area?
Where as most of the rest of the city is liberal and Democrat, they've been known to be more conservative and Republican. They'd also had many mayors of Cuban background. Many who moved to south Florida from Cuba were upper-middle class and educated in Cuba. Where as opposed to other Latin American countries, Cuba actually has money, education and good medical program and sciences. The people knew they could never capitalize on their potential unless they got out.
They didn't have to leave though. Even though their rights would be been limited, the life they would have lived inside that box would been alright. Although it's limited, they could have legally immigrated to Spain or other European countries on a visa. Many Greek immigrants didn't have to come either. Chinese, Indians and others didn't have to come here. The reason why so many Italian, Mexican and Puerto Rican immigrants moved here was because there was no work or oppurtunity (i.e. modernized farming techniques in Puerto Rico got rid of many jobs).
They forced themselves to believe in the ''American Dream'' that seems like a joke now. Therefore, their experience was a little more rough here. They had to fight harder to make it. This lingers onto some of the older generations who feel the fight they had to do to provide their children and grandchildren went under-valued.
If someone like yourself intelligently understood this, they'd know that even if the term Hispanic wasn't insultive (or collectivist), it just doesn't sound right. That is especially true for the foreign-born population. They'd know that term isn't natural. They'd know the term Latino is stealing their individual nationality's heritage. Most people wouldn't be desperate enough to settle for that. People who are intelligent would rather prefer accepting their heritage in their own little box, rather than depending on idiot to supply them with BS culture.
What you'll notice is that those who look at this clearly, do so with all cultures. You do not have to be of Italian descent to know Italian recipes. People of Italian background have been in this country twice as long as those of Puerto Rican descent. They've had more time to mix. They often did mix. Many of the older people who would self-identity as Italian would pacify themselves as saying the white catholic they married was ''Irish'' or an ancestry that was gone long before theres (even if they were mixed).
Dominicans who have married those of Puerto Rican descent who are dumb enough to pretend that Puerto Rican heritage still lives, have done the same exact thing. The only difference is that Italian's were the one pressing on other European-Americans to have culture, so it didn't challenge their whiteness. With those of more recent Dominican descent, they don't have to try as hard because it makes the person of Puerto Rican descent marrying them feel more special (or cultured). Therefore, the spouse of Puerto Rican descent might rave on about this.
I'm not directing this question to you, but rather others who may disagree with me. If being of Puerto Rican or Dominican descent was important to any, why would they so commonly marry eachother? It's not as if there are enough people of both background's. The same could be said to those of Italian background mixing with Irish, Polish, German, ect. Most of the time Dominican immigrants either came married or found a way to marry a Dominican immigrant rather than settling for a likely lower-middle class uncultured American. It's because all heritage at this point is obsolete and the Dominican immigrants who have moved to this country settled in the same areas where Puerto Ricans did a half-century ago.
Remember, New York City is a very diverse city. I'm sure being of Puerto Rican descent may seem to have more flavor in Ohio, but people aren't wowed by that here. In fact, if you are of Puerto Rican descent in this city, very few consider you cultured. Their foreign exposure has dissolved. Little has been held onto. It is nothing more than a severely annoying title.
In fact, no one should even consider them ethnic. If people were actually more intelligently and thought outside the box, they'd realize that Puerto Ricans represent the only unique and significantly residential ex-numerous slave owning ancestor's population throughout the entire city's history.
62% of Puerto Ricans have claimed to be of white ancestry in New York City. Approximately 9% claimed black. The other 29% claimed to mostly be mixed. Being that Puerto Ricans are 9.9%, white Puerto Rican-Americans would constitute for about six percent of the population of New York City. Being that they could have had 15 to 20 something generations in Puerto Rico before ever arriving to New York City, it's obvious that throughout those lines that someone in their families owned slaves. Why doesn't anyone talk or acknowledge this? Very, very few whites in New York descend from the south. The only other ancestors you might be able to say owned slaves in New York is if an African-American had partial white ancestry from the south.
One thing you'll notice about groups such as Chinese, Koreans or Greeks is that they're stronger. If I'm wrong, why do they not show a flag at every possible living moment? The nice BS eating non-controversial answer would be to say because Latin people are expressive. That isn't the answer. The answer is that these groups are needy.
The only way they could exist is if other people know they are. It's kind of like the expression if you scream in the woods and no one is there to hear it, did it ever happen? The most common flags to see would be Puerto Rican, Italian and Dominican flags. There are as many Chinese-Americans as Dominican-Americans in New York City, yet you'd probably see 100 times as many Dominican flags. Both groups predominate population's came during similar time periods. With the exception of Chinatown, if someone in New York were to see the Chinese flag, they'd probably think it had something to do with the olympics.
Not many people know who are of Puerto Rican, Dominican or Italian descent. Without discriminatively assuming, how would you ever know? And if you did know, how would you know they even self-identity with this BS? It's not like it's that easy. Consider heritage for American-born people in this city like a mirage in the desert. It doesn't exist. By you acknowledging a useless Puerto Rican ancestry gives their non-existing unification. It creates confusion.
I feel bad knowing that this isn't fair to you. The idea of the culture you have managed to properly conserve is not something that could be shared, without being tainted. I take a realistic and hard way of looking at this, but I know my heritage is useless, and I accept that.
''I'm sure there are some valid points in there and that you are saying something about the original topic but it comes off as a series of independent paragraphs strung together by non-sequiters. Although your diatribe about the disintigration of Dominican and Hispanic culture holds some bearing on the future of Washington Heights I think your starting point about real estate values, geography, and income is more relevant to the conversation.''
I understand where you're coming from. I acknowledge that I have thrown my opinion in the topic a little too much. I know I have went off base a little, but it helped show my point. It helps give people a reality and makes it worth reading.
The reason why I talked about heritage was because I've seen much talked about on here. It was to my interpretation that the questioning of the future of this area was highly circled around ethnicity. I wouldn't have come to that conclusion if other's didn't talk about that. Almost every reply was about some sort of ethnicity or race. One person described it as historically was Irish, Greek and what ever else (even though that has nothing to do with the future). Another said that the people moving in were a mix of white and black Manhattan residents. Why couldn't they just say it's Manhattan residents coming in?
This probably relates to the point I've made about institutionalized racism. Sometimes racism is just thinking about race or ethnicities too much. Even promoting diversity could be a form of institutionalized racism because you're still thinking about it. The only way people could forget about this if they stop thinking about it.
I should have and am willing to discuss the geography, real-estate and income levels of the area. Honestly if it were up to me, I'd prefer not to. Focusing on the economic side of things is the more important, being that is the primary indicator for who will be living in this area for generations to come. I want people to understand that most heritage is useless at this point. I want people to under the options that Dominican immigrants (and other immigrants) and first generation Dominican-Americans have in retaining anything for the future.
NYC0127: I recognize that "Hispanic" was a term that the government started using at the time of the Nixon administration but I embrace it becuase it is a legitimate and often-used word in the Spanish language: hispano, meaning "of Spanish descent or culture." People in Spain often DO speak of "origen hispano" (Hispanic origin) when referring to people in the New World whose ancestors came from Spain. Believe it or not, "latino" is also used in Mediterranean Europe: in Spain and Italy it has a usage that you will rarely hear in the United States: "of Latin descent or culture" - this of course embraces all of Europe's Latin countries. A second VERY recent meaning has emerged in Spain to mean "Latin American." I have no problem with the proper use of the terms "Hispanic" or "Latino" in the United States; I just have a problem when people use the terms in a pseudo-racial sense. I sense that this improper use is probably why you have such a strong opinion against the use of the term "Hispanic" in the first place. The US Census recognizes that race and Hispanic/Latino background are two separate questions, but many people in the NYC area and around the country are bewildered by this concept. I grew up in the Miami area and became very accustomed to people using these terms correctly. I attended college in Boston and was absolutely blindsided by the first person who said to me... "You grew up in Miami and are fluent in Spanish? I didn't know you weren't white! How do you have blue eyes?" That's another discussion altogether, I guess.
Anyways, back to the point: you're right that assimilation is hard to resist and that it's usually in a person's best interest to assimilate. That's why - in the context of immigration to this country - the Germans lost their ethnic identity, the Irish lost theirs, the Italians have all but lost theirs, and the Puerto Ricans and Dominicans are in the process of becoming the next Italians. In this area, it is the Mexicans who are the newcomers; in a generation or so, they will likely become just as American as the rest of us. Washington Heights will have a Dominican flavor for a long time, but it will likely become diluted year by year, just as many former "ethnic" neighborhoods in NYC have become diversified and more Americanized.
Thanks for the correction on using the correct term Latin American. I was told previously that hispanic was incorrect and it was akin to using the term colored for African Americans, a term also in dispute.
However most of the other information you have typed, most people already know this and understand it. They just choose not to apply this information when competing against someone else for the necessities and wants of life. It is nice to ban together with someone of the same ethnic, racial, religious, or economic group if we can get what we want in the end. It is also nice to go against someone of different groups if that will also get us what we want in the end. Remember "all's fair........."
Last edited by DAS; 01-23-2008 at 02:12 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
