The future of Washington Heights (New York, Brunswick: lease, crime, credit)

[nyc0127]

I'll try to slim down on the length of the messages. Because the Nixon administration created the term, doesn't equate for cultural legitimacy. It would be like saying if I created my own word for bread, should everyone else start using it? The word hispano is a word in Latin America, although represents different meaning. It is also said much differently and intended for different use. It is a more technical term you might see on a cell phone commercial on the spanish channel.

It is not a word used in every-day language. In general, the word Hispanic isn't in America either, but is more politically understood. It's meaning in Latin America is simple. It means someone who's primary language is spanish. The origins of the word date back to the Iberian peninsula.

In America, the definition should be the same, but isn't. The government would probably even tell you it's the same. However, the government and media don't want any of you to believe that. If you did, it would not be such a political device. I hear so much crap about the ''Hispanic'' vote as if there actually is a ''Hispanic'' community. Only two people would believe such a thing exists. Someone who made it up and eats their own garbage. Or an idiot.

Why didn't the government or media publicize the changing defininiton of the term Hispanic in 2000? They want the typical American to believe that this term exists. They want people to believe there is a four race system in this country. They need people to believe and not challenge this term, in order to eliminate any impoverished generations following the immigrants.

America basis identification off of what they can see. You can't just know who is what. There is no cultural or political unity. They're as split Democrat-Republican as the rest of the country. They vote along Democratic lines when they're in cities or liberal places in California or New York City, and vote more conservatively in rural places like Texas. We live in a selfish and materialistic country. Someone's economic and personal situation only goes as far as that.

I guarantee you many people would give you a different response to what the definition of that word is. Being of spanish descent may have been the older definition of it in Latin America. Through American technology and modern connections between the U.S. and spanish-speaking Latin America, the term ''hispano'' has been revised. Regardless of whether you're in a sky scraper in Mexico City or a poor village in Guatemala though, the word is rarely used. Therefore, under technical circumstances, you're right. However, socially speaking, I'm right.

As I mentioned before, Spain's ties with Latin America are sour. In many circumstances, they're completely severed. It has also been centuries since Latin America's spanish ancestors migrated to Latin America. In America, do those of colonial English descent retain ties with Great Britain? Very rarely.

Although ties are good now, for a while they weren't. In more intelligent states like New Hampshire and Maine, people are aware of their ancestry. Trying to get a white southerner to just to know what country their ancestors are from would be a whole day's worth of work. With countries such as Cuba and Argentina, ties are better. Part of the reason for that is because Spaniard migration to those countries was more recent. Many people in Puerto Rico and other places felt that Spain took advantage of them up until they were no longer a colony. They wanted their own independence just like America.

They don't use the word hispano often either. There are different distinctions made, but both world's are in different places. What seems to be like the old world in Spain is now the new world, and what seems to be the new world in over half of Latin America feels like the old world.

People in Spain and western Europe are generally more intellectual than those in this country, so they don't feel the need to group three quarters of a billion people together as one. They'd be more likely individually recognize by nationality such as Cuban, Colombian, ect. There are immigrants from Latin America who move there. Spain expects a lot from them though. Western European countries are very picky on who they allow in.

Yes, the word Latino is used in southern Europe. In fact, I read that it was an Italian last name. The definition of that word is different though. To them, it could described as a shortened version of Latin America geographically. In America, the word ''Latino'' is used as a substitute to those who don't like the term Hispanic. The U.S. government began to recognize the term Latino in 2003. In the U.S., the terms are virtually the same exact thing. In Europe, for as little used or importance both terms represents (because of a low Latin-American population and better way of looking at this), the terms are still interpreted in a different way.

In Europe, what ever term is created, is strictly only used for demographical usage. They're very careful about this. That is why the example of you gave that Spain and Italy uses are proper. On the other hand, in the United States which says all are equal, contradicts themselves every time it is mandated that you classify what race you are on over half of job applications. If we all are equal, than why would a racial classification be necessary?

In Western Europe, they have much more confidence in their citizens to socially solve these problems. They have much more liberated governments. When people feel like their prime minister isn't doing a good job, they get a knew one. In America, we have a system that refuses to adapt to change without force.

The history behind the American government's usage of these terms will always leave a bad linger on this. Personally, if there was a right way to use the terms Hispanic or Latino, I wouldn't mind it either. I and many others don't trust U.S. citizens enough to socially figure out (or care) how to use these terms properly. My view on this would be that if people can't use either term the right way, these terms just shouldn't be used at all. If these terms aren't used at all the linger will disintegrate and the political weapon will dissolve. Believe me, I don't expect all to agree with me on this theory, but I do expect people to understand what I'm talking about.

Internationally speaking, the terms aren't harmful. In my opinion, if America followed Canada's identification, that wouldn't be a bad solution. Similarly to Europe, Canada uses this for demographical usage. They've also kept up with Europe on ideals such as health-care being a human-right. I know America will eventually catch up to them, so I'm not worried.

Canada uses what many European countries uses. They have a term they called ''visible'' minority. It basically means someone who you know doesn't look like the normal white citizen. Canada is 2.8% of Latin American descent. Only one-quarter of that population (0.7%) has claimed to be a visible minority.

Unlike America, Canada also recognizes Jewish as an ethnicity. Jews have had to suffer the Holocaust and horrible treatment throughout history. They often don't care for the nationalities they descend from because of the distasteful history that has to be brought with it. On the other hand, in America (and especially NYC), if you ever made that insinuation, you'd be immediately deemed a bigot.

In Canada, over three-quarters of people of Middle-Eastern descent have claimed to be a visible minority. They provide the option for people to choose. In the United States, Middle-Eastern people are classified as white. I have it difficult to believe that Jack Del Rio is considered ''visibly'' different than the norm of America, and Osama Bin Laden isn't. Most Americans are so out there, they'd likely be even more bewildered if someone who was Muslim was classified as white.

You are right. My distaste for these terms are heavily linked to the pseudo-racial sense. I don't expect Americans to be able to re-classify this properly, so I'm purposing to eliminate the power in these terms altogether. In the Miami area, these terms are used more carefully. It doesn't mean their isn't political orientation to this, but they know not to re-construct the definition. A large reason why is because many people who live in Florida haven't been living there for long (regardless of American or direct immigrant). In many Florida police departments, police officers are not allowed to classify criminals or missing persons as ''Hispanic.''

They are only aloud to mark white, black, asian or other. For the places that do use the term Hispanic more frequently (like major cities), they often say ''white Hispanic'' or ''black Hispanic.'' The term hispanic is being used in the regard to describe that the person doesn't speak English or has a foreign Latin-American accent. For as behind and uneducated Florida seems, isn't it an awkward paradox that they're on the right page with this and someone from arguably the most educated city in the U.S. (Boston) doesn't know better? Even for someone who said that to you (who may have been educated and grew up in an educated enviroment), isn't it a little unintelligent to come the conclusion someone with blue eyes isn't white?

Getting people to be educated and intelligent is only half the battle. Opening up peoples eyes and making them see outside the box is the other. I know for your situation it would have likely been impossible, but someone with blue eyes of Puerto Rican descent in New York could have had ancestors who owned more slaves than most white southerners. They'd likely be approached just like you were (and likely more often), yet never confronted about their slave-owning ancestors.

I'm glad that we're on the same page with American assimilation. Assimilation may sound like it sucks, but is inevitable for all. It is the only way to economically and socially be comfortable in this country. Although our opinions may differ, I believe that Puerto Ricans have already become the next Italians. I believe they have nothing left. I see such ignorant articles published in papers throughout the New York area though. The propoganda is amazing. I read one article that said Puerto Rican-American incomes are half of the average salary of the United States. Wouldn't that be impossible?

The U.S. classifies somewhere around 48 thousand a year as the average income. I don't know if that means before or after taxes, but I hope after. They claim ''Hispanics'' are around 34 thousand. Half of 48K is 24K. There are 3 million people of Puerto Rican descent in the U.S. Almost half of that lives in the New York Metropolitan area. Let alone you couldn't survive on 48K in New York City, who could live off of 24K? To live a normal middle class life in America for a family of four, a family income of over 125K a year is necessary. Being that so much of those of Puerto Rican descent lives in affluent places in the northeast, they should be well-suprassed any other Latin-American descended born U.S. citizen's per capita income.

They do this for one big reason. It helps stimulate the ideaology that ''Hispanics'' are poor or lower-middle class because they are. Puerto Ricans are the largest ethnicity within Latin-Americans in New York City. Typically, if you said the words Latin-American descent in New York City, many would immediately think Puerto Rican. The media needs to make the face look dirty to get this goal.

I know this is progranda for several reasons. Go up any suburban block through New Jersey, Connecticut, Long Island or Westchester. It isn't that difficult to find people of Puerto Rican descent living in those houses. Would you be able to afford the typical 550-600K split-end home in this area (plus over 10K a year in property taxes) or afford 2 thousand in rent if you were only making 24K (or 48K) a year? Hell no.

At this point in time, being of Puerto Rican descent has no affiliation to the economic life you'll live. If you were one of the few who properly retained the spanish language, you'd actually have a significant advantage. Would there even be a way of properly tallying people of Puerto Rican descent's income? It's hard enough for the government to know who is ''Hispanic'', so how is the gov't suppose to know who is Puerto Rican for the last couple generations who weren't born in Puerto Rico?

Where they're at in time is where Italians were in the early 60's, which was their dissolving period. Because of the speedier process of this modern-day, it would seem people of Italian descent of the 80's. On the west coast, Mexican immigrants who came in the 60's, 70's and 80's have already showed what the new-comers will be. In affluent places, they'll do well. In poor places, they'll be poor. Being of Latin-American descent will have no affiliation to anyone's success level. The only ones who would say it has something to do with their non-economic propserity are loser's who aren't man enough to work hard for success. Almost all losers in America share that same philosophy.

The new wave of immigration in New York City will be largely Asian. The Dominican wave is all but over. West Indians money is worth more than ours now and want to come here much less. The most common groups you'll see are Chinese, Indians, Mexicans, central and south Americans. It will be kind of like California's immigration pattern.

As far as Washington Heights having a ''Dominican'' flavor for a long time, that is partly true, but more false. In the regard that is where many of their ancestors technically come from will be true. Anyone who is of Dominican or Puerto Rican descent and intelligent would tell you that Dominican culture is a mix of a lot of things. Therefore, it would be even more difficult to hold onto for a long period of time (especially in this speedy modern-day era).

It isn't natural Chinese, Italian or Nigerian culture. It had to be assemled by more than one group. More than three quarters of their population is of African descent, yet almost everything about their culture is from Western Europe. Eventually, when the ethnic title of being Dominican dissolves, that 75% of Dominican descent in the NYC and Washington Heights will be in an awkward position.

Being that they will follow the trend to middle-class assimilation like West Indians or African immigrants, I doubt they'd marry a poor African-American. Just look at Queens. Queens is the only place in American history to have a population over 70 thousand (they have over 2.3 million) to have blacks have average a higher salary than whites in a year.

If Dominican-Americans were to stay in Washington Heights, than a continuation of marrying people of the same background would be popular. The same could be said to those of West Indians where their numbers are high in Brooklyn. Many will leave these enclaves for the same reasons everyone else has though.

In America, interracial mixing isn't as common as it should be. Personally, I'm a white American but would marry a women of any ethnicity or race. Point being, most people will follow the majority trend that black people will marry blacks. White will marry whites. Within those brackets though, people will expect an educated middle-class stature. Those of African-Dominican descent will be willing to marry middle-class African-Americans, others who share their backgrounds and occasionally people who aren't black.

New York City is 7% West Indian and 11.6% African-American. Within successful West Indian men or women, it's common to see them marry middle-class African-Americans. The income level is much higher for West Indian immigrants than it is for African-Americans. The numbers aren't far apart and both are usually members of Protestant churches. However, the point I've made about people expecting a middle-class stature (regardless of ethnicity or race) is proven true. That is why if you were to talk to poorest and least educated black person in New York City, it wouldn't shock you that they have a complete bloodline of African-American southerners.

The only thing that will keep Dominican-Americans continuing to marry Dominican-Americans (or black spanish-speaking Latin-American ancestries) in places like Washington Heights is that they're mostly Catholic and live in the same neighborhoods. In conclusion, Dominican lineage will be a large bulk of the population in Washington Heights for a long time, but that might be as far as it goes if people don't do something to change that.

[nyc0127]

''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 is fair........." ''

I'm glad that you understand that the term Latin American would be politically more correct. Don't get me wrong though. I'm not trying to sound demand or anything like that. Many of the points Crisp had made were valid. We both came to a common understanding that if people were to use the terms Hispanic or Latino properly, there would be no problem with that.

I agree that many people do know and understand this (especially on here). If they take in interest in conversing about this kind of topic, it's reasonable to expect a better knowledge for this than the average population.

As you pointed out, people won't apply the information if they feel it doesn't suit there needs. It's not that I don't blame people for doing that, because I'm sure all of us have a bias mindset about something. It's that it can go to far. Within any individual, they have the right to believe what ever it is they want.

When they spread their own version of what they'd want things to be, things really become confusing. Surely, it is nice to be able to bond a group. If there is no need to though, simple human-nature will naturally dissolve of it. It would be like saying would any of you hang out in Brooklyn (who don't live), if you weren't going somewhere?

I'd agree with your conclusion if their actually was a common want in the end. At this point in time there is absolutley no integrity in anything. Any person of European or Latin-American descent in this city could say they're of Puerto Rican or Italian descent and go unchallenged because no one cares.

A religion is a good example of a bond people can hold onto. The necessity of it has dissolved in our liberated culture though. Even if Jews, Muslims, Hindus and other groups aren't as religious as some pretend to be, they inadvertingly attach an ethnic identity to it.

[crisp444]

Nixon didn't actually "create" the term; he merely started to use it within the realm of the government by importing it from the Spanish language. I have absolutely no problem with describing myself as "Hispanic," regardless of whether no English-speaking person used this word prior to the 1970's. I see no problem in people from several Spanish-speaking countries identifying with each other and embracing a term to describe their Spanish ethnic or lingual heritage. It IS frustrating, however, to see non-Spanish speaking people who know very little about Spanish traditions (or Latin American traditions for that matter!) label themselves as "Hispanic" and somehow different from mainstream Americans of non-Hispanic descent. I find that it is often the most culturally non-Hispanic people who just happen to have Hispanic grandparents/relatives who are the most adamant about asserting their supposed "Hispanic" or "Latino" identity in order to distance themselves from "white people" or "Americans." It is really sad and insulting to both true ethnic/lingual Hispanics and to any other Americans in general into whose country these (mostly) young people who reject an American identity have been born.

There seem to be a lot of these types here in NYC, and that differs greatly from the Miami area where I grew up. In Miami, many young people with Latin American / Spanish-speaking parents are raised in a househould where the language and culture are fiercely preserved. One of my childhood friends was actually forbidden to speak English with his parents at home unless it had to do with homework assignments.. this was to MANDATE - not just simply to encourage - the use of Spanish in the home. This seems mean and may seem silly to some people, but the finished product was a young man who is almost spotlessly fluent in both English and Spanish. In most cases of parents who were much more liberal with their use of English in the home, the children of those homes do not speak Spanish proficiently, let alone fluently. Everyone knows that kids - no matter their origin - speak English at school and with each other on the playground and at the mall, so one of the only ways to assure that the Hispanic lingual/cultural tradition is passed down is to start fiercely in the home. Out of the many kids (who are now in their early to mid twenties) with whom I grew up who had Spanish-speaking parents, about half speak decent Spanish and about a quarter or fluent. I actually know a few people (all of us born and raised here in the US) with whom I speak nearly-exclusively in Spanish when we are in private or among other Spanish-speakers. It is hard to maintain this, but for some of us its worth the fight. Most of our friends (especially mine, because I live here in NYC now) don't speak Spanish so we try to take advantage of when we are together to speak it, either on the phone or in person.

I agree with you that preserving ethnic/lingual heritage in the United States is largely a losing battle. NYC is an absolute machine for assimilation, and in a way that is a beautiful thing. So many people here or so many different origins STRONGLY identify first and foremost as being a New Yorker. You don't find that kind of thing in Miami. However, you do find several families who are hellbent on assuring that they raise kids who will in turn pass on the Hispanic lingual and ethnic tradition to THEIR kids, and at the same time raise full-blooded American children. I once read a book about how Miami is a breeding ground for people with bicultural identities (both Latin/Hispanic and "American") but I have forgotten the title. The difference with NYC is that it is a breeding ground for Americans through and through and I do not necessarily think that is a bad thing. It perplexes me that people separate NYC from the rest of the country for various reasons because in my opinion NYC is the most quintessentially American place in this country.

[soeasy321]

the future of the heights? ddps is takin over bitches. my *****s on dyckman audubon saint nicks already know.

[SuperMario]

Originally Posted by soeasy321

the future of the heights? ddps is takin over bitches. my *****s on dyckman audubon saint nicks already know.

na man you buggin.......Heights is 3ni territory......DDP's got a lil bit on Broadway but they aint takin over ****. DDP's got more presence in the Bronx though.

[soeasy321]

Originally Posted by SuperMario

na man you buggin.......Heights is 3ni territory......DDP's got a lil bit on Broadway but they aint takin over ****. DDP's got more presence in the Bronx though.

just watch ddps gonna air the 3nis out. i heard the ddps chased the 3nis out the dr parade. i heard they stabbed some of them *****s up too. and they always beefin on the daily. ddp *****s will take the 1 train in the heights for no reason other then jus lookin for 3ni *****s to **** up stab up.

all i hear from 3ni is talk. ddps is the ones puttin in work. makin more noise on the streets.

[SuperMario]

Originally Posted by soeasy321

just watch ddps gonna air the 3nis out. i heard the ddps chased the 3nis out the dr parade. i heard they stabbed some of them *****s up too. and they always beefin on the daily. ddp *****s will take the 1 train in the heights for no reason other then jus lookin for 3ni *****s to **** up stab up.

all i hear from 3ni is talk. ddps is the ones puttin in work. makin more noise on the streets.

na from wa i understand DDP's took care of 3ni's in the BX parade but wen it came to the one in Manhattan the 3ni's rolled madd deep n aired those *****s out the parade..they got mad videos up about that.

DDP's slacked in 07 too........5 DDP's were merked by 3ni's last year...aint nothing serious happen to 3ni's.....also in NYC 3nis hold MUCH more weight.....they got the heights, they got southside BK, Corona Queens, and the Concourse and 183rd in the BX.

DDP's be rockin hard around elder/soundview/morrison.parkchester/fordham....they got most of the BX...shout out to them cause they doing it big......but city wide.......na ma du......3ni's is on top

[soeasy321]

Originally Posted by SuperMario

na from wa i understand DDP's took care of 3ni's in the BX parade but wen it came to the one in Manhattan the 3ni's rolled madd deep n aired those *****s out the parade..they got mad videos up about that.

DDP's slacked in 07 too........5 DDP's were merked by 3ni's last year...aint nothing serious happen to 3ni's.....also in NYC 3nis hold MUCH more weight.....they got the heights, they got southside BK, Corona Queens, and the Concourse and 183rd in the BX.

DDP's be rockin hard around elder/soundview/morrison.parkchester/fordham....they got most of the BX...shout out to them cause they doing it big......but city wide.......na ma du......3ni's is on top

tru tru

i used to have a video saved of ddps chasin 3ni *****s in the dr parade but lost that ****. ddp *****s was actin like they handled dat in the dr parade. but tru 3ni got the numbers in the heights. and mad 3nis in west harlem and marcy pjs in the stuy. but ddp is mad more wrecklass then 3ni so watch them get they numbers up in the heights.

i gotta give it to them ddp *****s for gettin they numbers up but in the bx they on top. but in the bx bloods latin kings and block crews mostly ricans is runnin that ****.

ddps might fall off in the bx tho cuz a lot of the old *****s is droppin that and joinin up wit the puerto ricans wit that la familia **** at least i heard some **** like that. but still there is plenty young *****s joinin ddp.

**** is gonna be a crazy war but around my way in harlem is blood. and the heights got them 3nis and broadway west harlem 3nis dominicans deep.

[cyrusjul]

What that? LOL! Clear enough.

[SeventhFloor]

the future of washington heights is plain and simple....gentrification....and its been going on since the late '90s....all the dominicans will be in the bronx in 20 years. people's leases are going to end, and the landlords will elect not to renew them. it will take more time for the eastern part of washington heights to clean up but it will happen....and there's no such neighborhood as "hudson heights".....just washington heights and inwood.

a lot of people who work at columbia-presbyterian are probably jumping at the chance to own a pre-war co-op so they can walk to work and grab a starbucks on the way.