The future: enclavism or the melting pot?

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I guess it depends on what part of the US, too.

In SoCal, there is definitely Mexican-American culture. Even a Mexican-American accent. Not all of them white it up.

And I don't know if it's still the case, being that I'm 51 now, but I had Chinese-American and Japanese-American friends/classmates who went to Chinese school and "J" school on Saturdays.

I didn't mean to imply that there aren't some Latinos that are a bit more "insular." But nationally speaking, around 30% of Latinos and Asians marry outside of their "race." When just looking at native-born Latinos and Asians, it rises to around 40%-45%. That's a really, really high outmarriage rate - to the point that if it wasn't for continued immigration the number of visibly Asian/Latino people would nearly halve every generation.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

The next time you're in the LA suburbs, all you need to do is actually get out of the car and walk around Huntington Park, Bell Gardens, Norwalk, Baldwin Park, El Monte, South El Monte, Rosemead, Monterey Park, Temple City, etc., and it's nothing like Whittier or Diamond Bar. There's nothing "apple pie/all-American" about walking into a La Michoacana Nieves Y Mas or Mian on Valley Boulevard and being greeted en español or Mandarin, respectively.

Right, but that's irrelevant. We're talking about assimilation in later generations, not gateway enclaves. Everyone knows that LA has authentic Chinese and Mexican enclaves. No one expects someone "fresh off the boat" to not have cultural distinctions from mainstream white American culture.

California is the best evidence that the racial anxiety behind white replacement is largely bigoted nonsense. California has already had white replacement, but remains culturally anchored to U.S. norms. Places like Whittier and Diamond Bar are all-American despite barely having any (non-Hispanic) whites. The future U.S. won't be culturally alien just because Mexicans and Asians account for growth, largely because of 1. Massive intermarriage and 2. (White) Hispanics and Asians are culturally assimilated by third generation.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Crawford

California is the best evidence that the racial anxiety behind white replacement is largely bigoted nonsense. California has already had white replacement, but remains culturally anchored to U.S. norms. Places like Whittier and Diamond Bar are all-American despite barely having any (non-Hispanic) whites. The future U.S. won't be culturally alien just because Mexicans and Asians account for growth, largely because of 1. Massive intermarriage and 2. (White) Hispanics and Asians are culturally assimilated by third generation.

This is a bit of an aside, but what ultimately happened with the old-stock Nuyorican population which came to NYC in the 1950s? My impression is they've been largely replaced by Dominicans and other Hispanic groups (along with more recent migrants from Puerto Rico) across many of their enclaves. But I'm unaware of any Puerto Rican "ethnoburbs" around NYC.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by eschaton

This is a bit of an aside, but what ultimately happened with the old-stock Nuyorican population which came to NYC in the 1950s? My impression is they've been largely replaced by Dominicans and other Hispanic groups (along with more recent migrants from Puerto Rico) across many of their enclaves. But I'm unaware of any Puerto Rican "ethnoburbs" around NYC.

I don't think there are any PR ethnoburbs in the NYC area or elsewhere in the Northeast. There's at least one in Florida, though - the Winter Park area, outside Orlando, is a PR ethnoburb, many of them from the NYC area/Northeast.

Within NYC, PRs are still prominent, but there isn't a PR neighborhood that hasn't been at least somewhat coopted by DR, Mexican or other Hispanic newcomers.

Middle class PRs in the region have largely assimilated into white and black cultural norms (obviously PRs/DRs are distinct from Mexicans in that many are Afro-Carribean and are more likely to assimilate into black American cultural norms). One interesting distinction is that DRs tend to have more Afro Caribbean lineage than PRs, but DRs are stereotyped as culturally "whiter" than PRs, who are known for close affinity with AA culture regardless of racial lineage. To take an example, it's very rare for Afro-Caribbean DRs to wear hair natural, while AA hair style influences are common even among white PRs.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by Docere

Yes, Black immigrants integrate into the AA community.

When I lived in Edgewater (Chicago); that really wasn’t the case at all. African immigrants were not outwardly integrated with the AA community.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

When I lived in Edgewater (Chicago); that really wasn’t the case at all. African immigrants were not outwardly integrated with the AA community.

What about their kids/grandkids? That's what we're talking about, as first-generation immigrants never assimilate fully, no matter where they are from.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

When I lived in Edgewater (Chicago); that really wasn’t the case at all. African immigrants were not outwardly integrated with the AA community.

But their grandchilden (probably) will be, assuming U.S. black-white cultural norms remain stable.

Yeah, if you go to a black immigrant neighborhood, like East Flatbush, Brooklyn, the black culture is quite distinct from AA culture, because it's immigrants, but their kids and grandkids will be AA by most U.S. norms.

Carmelo Anthony, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Cardi B, Biggie Smalls, Harry Belafonte, Jay-Z, Simone Biles, Stokley Carmichael, P Diddy, Marcus Garvey, Lester Holt, Eric Holder, Lenny Kravitz, Bruno Mars, Maxwell, Floyd Mayweather, Colin Powell, Busta Rhymes, Susan Rice, Jada Pinkett Smith, Mike Tyson, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Carrie Washington, Malcolm X.

Are these famous folks considered prominent immigrants/children of immigrants or prominent African Americans? They're both. All are black West Indian immigrants or children of immigrants, most growing up in NYC-area West Indian enclaves.

But they're most associated with AA culture. I think one would have a hard time arguing that Jay-Z, Malcolm X and Mike Tyson aren't really AA because of their immigrant background.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Carmelo Anthony, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Cardi B, Biggie Smalls, Harry Belafonte, Jay-Z, Simone Biles, Stokley Carmichael, P Diddy, Marcus Garvey, Lester Holt, Eric Holder, Lenny Kravitz, Bruno Mars, Maxwell, Floyd Mayweather, Colin Powell, Busta Rhymes, Susan Rice, Jada Pinkett Smith, Mike Tyson, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Carrie Washington, Malcolm X.

Are these famous folks considered prominent immigrants/children of immigrants or prominent African Americans? They're both. All are black West Indian immigrants or children of immigrants, most growing up in NYC-area West Indian enclaves.

Bruno Mars is not black. His father is half Puerto Rican and half Jewish. He probably has some black ancestry from his dad, but his dad is white-passing and way lighter than he is. Bruno's mother is Filipina with some Spanish ancestry. He's actually been accused of "cultural appropriation" in recent years due to draping himself in blackness even though he isn't black.

I completely agree about the rest though.

[The North One]

^ Lol Bruno Dolezal has been intentionally fooling people for many years because it was good for his career. There's nothing black about him. I don't blame people for getting bamboozled.

[ChiMIchael]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

When I lived in Edgewater (Chicago); that really wasn’t the case at all. African immigrants were not outwardly integrated with the AA community.

They were until about a generation ago. African immigrants (mainly from Ghana and Nigeria) use to settle on the South and West Sides, but now they gravitate towards the far north side (Uptown, Edgewater, Rogers Park, west ridge,,etc.)

[RST500]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Right, but that's irrelevant. We're talking about assimilation in later generations, not gateway enclaves. Everyone knows that LA has authentic Chinese and Mexican enclaves. No one expects someone "fresh off the boat" to not have cultural distinctions from mainstream white American culture.

California is the best evidence that the racial anxiety behind white replacement is largely bigoted nonsense. California has already had white replacement, but remains culturally anchored to U.S. norms. Places like Whittier and Diamond Bar are all-American despite barely having any (non-Hispanic) whites. The future U.S. won't be culturally alien just because Mexicans and Asians account for growth, largely because of 1. Massive intermarriage and 2. (White) Hispanics and Asians are culturally assimilated by third generation.

Race relations in California are fairly affable, compared to say Chicago, but the maps in the original article show that the diverse areas are much rarer than what many assume.

[RST500]

A lot depends on future trends such as whether we see a continuation of neoliberal policies that enable and encourage people to constantly relocate for housing and employment, other economic factors, political narratives on race leading to polarization, and whether California remains a destination for new immigrants.

[muppet]

Enforced melting pot results in enclavism a generation later -people rebel, they don't align with the larger culture if they're forced to do so. Their third generation kids may however do so, after so long a cultural onslaught and become native, albeit slightly embittered - as in France. Don't expect the journey to be smooth.



Enforced enclavism (so long as its not TOO ghetto) results in melting pot one generation later -the kids warm to a society that demands they don't have to speak the language, follow the religion or swear to a flag (often in a misguided hope they develop separately making their strange smelling bat voodoo in their own separated communities). As in Britain -the first generation not assimilating enough but the second generation openly so. Don't expect the journey to be smooth.


Once again both scenarios rely on ghettoisation (not just residentially but culturally) not being TOO overt, delineated or corrupted, whereby new generations have no economic piece of the pie regardless of their performance -eg Apartheid era South Africa or colonial/ postcolonial nations. Certain areas/ communities in the UK, France and US, even after centuries have however suffered this, while other communities haven't.


An 'enclave' may for example be 55 or 60 percent of that community. Whereas one that's 80-98% is pretty much a ghetto, either enforced or self-enforced. The latter doesn't tend to do well, it becomes isolated from the wider economy and culture.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by muppet

Enforced melting pot results in enclavism a generation later -people rebel, they don't align with the larger culture if they're forced to do so. Their third generation kids may however do so, after so long a cultural onslaught and become native, albeit slightly embittered - as in France. Don't expect the journey to be smooth.



Enforced enclavism (so long as its not TOO ghetto) results in melting pot one generation later -the kids warm to a society that demands they don't have to speak the language, follow the religion or swear to a flag (often in a misguided hope they develop separately making their strange smelling bat voodoo in their own separated communities). As in Britain -the first generation not assimilating enough but the second generation openly so. Don't expect the journey to be smooth.


Once again both scenarios rely on ghettoisation (not just residentially but culturally) not being TOO overt, delineated or corrupted, whereby new generations have no economic piece of the pie regardless of their performance -eg Apartheid era South Africa or colonial/ postcolonial nations. Certain areas/ communities in the UK, France and US, even after centuries have however suffered this, while other communities haven't.


An 'enclave' may for example be 55 or 60 percent of that community. Whereas one that's 80-98% is pretty much a ghetto, either enforced or self-enforced. The latter doesn't tend to do well, it becomes isolated from the wider economy and culture.

This sounds a bit confusing. Ethnic segregation that comes from disadvantage (either social, legal, economic, societal pressure or hard oppression) vs. voluntariness, power to decide, and choice sounds like it's a way bigger deal and the major dividing line than raw percentage of an ethnic group.

On

The latter doesn't tend to do well, it becomes isolated from the wider economy and culture.

How about the Mennonites, Amish, Mormons, or even what about say, stereotypical upper class old money east coast WASP "enclaves" in the US. Hypothetically, they should also count as enclaves.

Or is it only "racialized" groups that get called that?

In any case, I don't know if enclave has a set definition in the ethnic sense just by sheer percentage (though even politically and legally you can literally talk about an enclave as a landlocked nation place/state/city, like Lesotho is an enclave inside South Africa or the Vatican and San Marino in Italy)... but I thought places called ghettos usually trace their roots to some sort of historic coercion or oppression (the original Venetian Ghetto and other historic Jewish diaspora, the ghettos of the US later named by analogy, with for instance, black/white segregation that came from the Great Migration).

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Docere

In Toronto, the more homogeneous enclaves are generally more middle/higher income in the newer "905" suburbs with high, while the low income outer borough/inner suburb-type areas (i.e. its equivalents to Queens and much of Los Angeles) are less white, but quite racially mixed.

On paper these 905 suburbs are as diverse as the City of Toronto, but less of a mix on the ground level. Homeownership leads to more homogeneous environments, at least for first generation immigrants pursuing the Canadian/North American dream.

That stands in contrast to the US - due mainly to the history of segregation of Black communities. Toronto's Black population is about as segregated as that of Seattle or Minneapolis though - and they're not "segregated by choice" living in enclaves like much of the Chinese, Sikh or for that matter Jewish community (who are actually Toronto's most residentially "segregated" group).

How unique is this situation to Toronto (in diverse cities in N. America or even elsewhere like London, European cities etc., though yes I know the history is different now than centuries ago, since Jewish populations are really small now in Europe)?

Even though I know stats for Jewish population are hard to compare due to censusing differences between countries/cities I have a hard time thinking about any American city where the Jewish population "segregated by choice" in a way that numerically compares to the segregation by Black, Hispanic etc. or other groups, let alone is the single one that leads on a residential statistical index.

(Yes, you have the Orthodox Jewish communities in many areas but they are only one part of the Jewish part of a given city and even taking that example, I'm not even sure they would take the title of most residentially segregated part of most cities that also have historically black neighborhoods, by any statistical index, unless maybe we take extremes like Kiryas Joel).

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by ChiMIchael

They were until about a generation ago. African immigrants (mainly from Ghana and Nigeria) use to settle on the South and West Sides, but now they gravitate towards the far north side (Uptown, Edgewater, Rogers Park, west ridge,,etc.)

Why was this the case and what changed -- was it voluntary to begin with when African immigrants first settled near the historical black communities in the south side due to feeling some kind of kinship (though their ancestors would have been generations apart)? Or was this the result of constraint -- be it social pressure/economic pressure and the difficulty of breaking into established "white" neighborhoods then vs. now?

Or did the change happen as African immigrants became wealthier, more selected for education/socio-economic status prior to emigrating?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

How unique is this situation to Toronto (in diverse cities in N. America or even elsewhere like London, European cities etc., though yes I know the history is different now than centuries ago, since Jewish populations are really small now in Europe)?

Even though I know stats for Jewish population are hard to compare due to censusing differences between countries/cities I have a hard time thinking about any American city where the Jewish population "segregated by choice" in a way that numerically compares to the segregation by Black, Hispanic etc. or other groups, let alone is the single one that leads on a residential statistical index.

Really? I guess it's obscure now, but the legacy of Jewish exclusion/segregation was pretty blatant in most major U.S. cities, and created patterns still visible today. In Detroit, affluent Jews migrated north and west away from the city specifically because of exclusionary policies that discouraged them from going to affluent communities east of Detroit. Today, almost all of Metro Detroit's Jewish live in suburbs to the northwest of downtown Detroit.

MICHIGAN: Grosse Pointe's Gross Points

Monday, Apr. 25, 1960

Detroit's oldest and richest suburban area is the five-community section east of the city collectively called Grosse Pointe (pop. 50,000). Set back from the winding, tree-shaded streets are fine, solid colonial or brick mansions, occupied by some of Detroit's oldest (pre-automobile age) upper class, and by others who made the grade in business and professional life. Grosse Pointe is representative of dozens of wealthy residential areas in the U.S. where privacy, unhurried tranquillity, and unsullied property values are respected. But last week, Grosse Pointe was in the throes of a rude, untranquil exposé of its methods of maintaining tranquillity.

Swarthy? The trouble burst with the public revelation, during a court squabble between one property owner and his neighbors, that the Grosse Pointe Property Owners Association (973 families) and local real estate brokers had set up a rigid system for screening families who want to buy or build homes in Grosse Pointe. Unlike similar communities, where neighborhood solidarity is based on an unwritten gentleman's agreement, Grosse Pointe's screening system is based on a "written questionnaire, filled out by a private investigator on behalf of Grosse Pointe's "owner-vigilantes."

The three-page questionnaire, scaled on the basis of "points" (highest score: 100), grades would-be home owners on such qualities as descent, way of life (American?), occupation (Typical of his own race?), swarthiness (Very? Medium? Slightly? Not at all?), accent (Pronounced? Medium? Slight? None?), name (Typically American?), repute, education, dress (Neat or slovenly? Conservative or flashy?), status of occupation (sufficient eminence may offset poor grades in other respects). Religion is not scored, but weighed in the balance by a three-man Grosse Pointe screening committee. All prospects are handicapped on an ethnic and racial basis: Jews, for example, must score a minimum of 85 points, Italians 75, Greeks 65, Poles 55; Negroes and Orientals do not count.

http://content.time.com/time/subscri...826273,00.html

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

How unique is this situation to Toronto (in diverse cities in N. America or even elsewhere like London, European cities etc., though yes I know the history is different now than centuries ago, since Jewish populations are really small now in Europe)?

Even though I know stats for Jewish population are hard to compare due to censusing differences between countries/cities I have a hard time thinking about any American city where the Jewish population "segregated by choice" in a way that numerically compares to the segregation by Black, Hispanic etc. or other groups, let alone is the single one that leads on a residential statistical index.

In London the Jewish population is heavily concentrated in a handful of North London constituencies.

Toronto and Montreal have very geographically concentrated Jewish communities as well.

In the US, Jews aren't counted in the Census so hard to know. It obviously varies greatly by city. In some older cities like Cleveland they're very concentrated in a few suburbs.

But Black communities are especially segregated in Northeastern, rust belt and older Southern cities. They often reach what is called hyper-segregation - i.e. dissimilarity index of over 70.

[Crawford]

While Orthodox Jewish communities are segregated, for obvious reasons, I think more secular Jewish populations are fairly segregated too.

Metro Detroit has a decent-sized Jewish population (for U.S. metro standards) and very secular. Lots of Reform, some Conservative, few Orthodox. I'm guessing relatively high rates of intermarriage.

But probably 95%+ of the community is in the Bloomfields, Huntington Woods (which is tiny), Oak Park and Farmington Hills, all in a narrow corridor in suburban Oakland County.

Other higher income/desirable corners of the metro have practically no Jews. Northville, Novi, Grosse Ile, the Pointes, Rochester, all have virtually no Jews.

[Docere]

Pattern seems to repeat in several cities. Chicago's Jews are mostly in the northern suburbs, and virtually absent in fairly affluent Du Page County for example.