The future of Washington Heights (Cuba: to live, title, racist)

[DAS]

nyc0127 If you are white what difference does it make to you how someone identifies themselves? What is the purpose of all these long post? You are not Dominican, Black American, West Indian or Jennifer Lopez or am I mistaken? How do you know how any of these people feel as a group or individuals? You didn't identify yourself as Irish either. So what is your point? Everyone has the right to identify as what ever they want to identify as. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. It doesn't matter if someone is rich or poor as long as they are working and taking care of themselves and no one else is writing a check for them.

[SeventhFloor]

just a reminder, stay on topic....

[nyc0127]

''Yes I did say that. The majority of the population is mixed, so neither is truly white or black. I dont have stats but neither do you. I have seen more white Dominicans than black. You see it the other way. The point is that you dont have enough hard evidence to conclude that Dominicans have a stronger African roots than Spanish.''

You aren't understanding what statistical significance means than. You said neither are truly white or black. 27% is truly white and black as one individual group. That isn't 2.7 percent. That isn't 10 percent. 27 percent is a lot. 27% is a big bulk of a population. It's funny though. It's like people will make 27 percent (something in that neighborhood) sound significant, if it fits there interest. An example would be Crisp coming to the conclusion that most people of Puerto Rican descent in New York City are of mixed ancestry, even though he didn't provide any statistical reference to back himself up.

Is there one skin for U.S. soldiers who are apart of military camouflage? No. Similarly to how the majority of Puerto Rico is white, the United States is too. Does each soldier's skin get blended or would they physically being individually judged upon when going in combat? If you didn't acknowledge that 20+% of he military that doesn't look like the rest, you'd be making a very ignorant judgement. For that matter too, if you were a military commander, you'd be making a pretty crappy choice too. If you got a 73% on a test, you probably wouldn't be that happy either. Cruise by with that average in college and you'll barely make it. When you graduate though, see how the business world views that missing 27 percent.

62% of those of Puerto Rican descent in NYC claimed they are white alone. 10 percent claimed to be black alone. 72% claims one race and 28% percent claims to be mixed. Therefore, it would be impossible to claim Puerto Rican descendants in this city are mixed, unless you pretended that 28 percent were the only ones who existed. Neither 73/27 or 72/28 is enough to say one or the other. As I said before, that solid six percent of New York City's white-Puerto Rican ancestors are the only group that legitimately has had ancestors who have significantly owned slaves. Ironically for as hot a topic race as in this city and media is, no one ever brings that up. Why?

Instead of some pleasingly just accepting the notion that their weren't the oppressor, some have even went as far to say that six percent of this city isn't even white. In fact, as much of a social paradox to some, the media and people would be more accepting of believing the idea that someone's ancestors who were in the Holocaust should be societally labeled as oppressive in this country, yet white Latin-American descendants just get let off the hook and acquire sympathy because of poverty linked to immigration. Why? Do any of realize that many of that descent (who try to celebrate their heritage) go with that notion of just believing everyone is apart of that 28 percent that is mixed, so it blankets and overshadows that possibility?

I'm not going to criticize any of Puerto Rican descent (nor anyone else) if they don't choose to give any attention to their obsolete heritage. If that 62 percent is to show high levels of pride for their background though, they should sure as hell be well acquainted with the fact that their ancestors oppressed black people more than anyone they'd ever come into contact with in this country. Therefore, if any were to ever give the insinuation they aren't white (if they are), they should wake up and smell the damn coffee.

Is there one skin for U.S. soldiers who are apart of military camouflage? No. Similarly to how the majority of Puerto Rico is white, the United States is too. Does each soldier's skin get blended or would they physically being individually judged upon when going in combat? If you didn't acknowledge that 20+% of he military that doesn't look like the rest, you'd be making a very ignorant judgement. For that matter too, if you were a military commander, you'd be making a pretty crappy choice too. If you got a 73% on a test, you probably wouldn't be that happy either. Cruise by with that average in college and you'll barely make it. When you graduate though, see how the business world views that missing 27 percent.

You are right that I don't have hard evidence. I'm not disputing that. Even if you were to divide the 73% into two though, you'd come out with an addition 36.5% white and black added onto the other 16% and 11%. That would make the Dominican Republic 52.5% white and 47.5% is black. Within both of those groups, there would be probably up to one percent of indigenous ancestry too, so it'd be more like 52 and 47. Even if they aren't high in percentage, there are white-Dominicans who are of non-Spaniard descent too.

It probably ranges in between 2-4%. In all, the Dominican Republic is split right down the middle between West African and Spaniard heritage, kind of like Democrats and Republicans in this country. That is the minimum of what it is though. To my belief, it is more, but I won't say that is a concrete belief, because I lack hard evidence. I'm saying that this island is more, but simply have not acquired (or presented) the data of the percentages within those mixtures. That would be very valuable information. With that being said though, only 73% of the D.R. has the right to choose which of the two cultures fits them better. The other 27 percent doesn't.

''If anything ignoring that 27% HELPS your cause for the simple fact that there are more white Dominicans than black...16% to 11%. The 73% I use because you made it seem like they were all black. Also since they are majority they are a better representation of the people. Who reallly are neither white nor black.''

It doesn't help my cause because there is no we factor in an individual's bloodline. The general feel of the island from a complete representation can have that. That would be the collectivist idea though. You can't celebrate someone else's lineage as if it was your own. Your flag is not your bloodline. You should know your own personal history inside and outside before choosing which heritage it is you'd like to celebrate (if you chose to).

People in the Dominican Republic likely know their lineage as good as people do in this country. They probably do know their percentages. All know it at different levels, but it's not like there are as many different ethnic groups that exist there. When they arrived to the United States though, many seem to forget their exact lineage. There is a good chance you don't know. There is also a good chance you don't know what year or decade you ancestors arrived to the Dominican Republic from Spain or Western Africa. People will just come to the conclusion that they're mixed (and that equals 50-50 because they know little) because the majority of the population is mixed. The majority doesn't represent an individual's lineage regardless of any circumstance.

Dominicans are technically more black than Puerto Ricans if you see human-beings from a collectivist blended vision. You say Dominicans and Puerto Ricans as if they are each one individual ethnicity though. Both aren't secondary culture. The United States has taught you that they are one nationality.

People don't believe in that there. People aren't that stupid. People have such little to hold onto within Dominican or Puerto Rican heritage nowadays in the U.S mainland (and especially the highly assimilating city of New York), that you couldn't even provide any attention to what goes on within that. In fact, for those who have those heritages in this city who choose to speak about it often are very generalized and vague in how they represent it.

''DR has a hierachy. In general the lighter skinned population is better off than the darker skinned. Seems like it has something to do with class. If you ever get to look at a Dominican pueblo (village) rich in poverty you would notice that everyone is black.''

I agree about the economic hierarchy. In some ways, the same could be said to this country. In this quote, you have somewhat contradicted yourself. I thought you say so few blacks exist in the Dominican Republic. I understand that you're telling me that 11 percent of the Dominican Republic is like half of MLB player's kind of like the NBA with African-Americans. If the insinuation you made about poor blacks being interested in baseball as an escaping of poverty is true, wouldn't the same idea be in the American dream? Wouldn't they want to escape being of low-class status?

Even if that statement was obsolete, I don't know why you'd believe Dominicans in this country are more likely to be white. Wouldn't black-Dominicans be more interested in moving to places like New York? If life isn't bad for the whites there, why would they even want to come to this overwhelmingly expensive city they'd be lower-middle class in (even if they were upper-middle class in the Dominican Republic)?

I do agree that people have that ridiculously stupid and racist idea that blacks are more ''athletic'' for a variety of reasons, but baseball is one of the few sports that lacks that. Major league baseball is 9 percent African-American. The Mets only have one African-American baseball player (Damion Easley). That is below the national 1/8 black population. Almost one-third of the MLB is foreign-born (primarily Latin American, some Asian) so it's understood that the talent pool for American baseball baseballs is thinner. Even within that though, blacks aren't above what they should be for the MLB.

Different regions of the world have varieties of people with different physical attributes. Some regions of this world are taller, some are shorter. It is understood that whites of different European ethnic groups are expected to have different portions of populations that are 6'5+. For example, those of southern European descent (i.e. Spanish, Italian) have not been understood to be that tall. Where as on the other hand similarly to some ethnic groups within Africa, many Eastern European ethnic groups have higher percentages of taller people, a large reason for why much of the NBA is from there. Height is also a large advantage in the NFL.

However, in baseball, height or other of those kinds of attributes really doesn't matter. I agree that poorer kid's will have more drive which is why more people have taken international interest, but your ability to physically perform in many aspects of the game are due to just having a gift. Someone might be able to improve the location of one's pitching location or added muscle, but no one could teach you how to throw 90+ mph or have incredible eye to bat coordination.

''When I said indian, I did not mean the Taino. I was reffering to the skin color which is a mix of black and white.

It is also my belief that most of the Dominicans in the US are lighter tones.''

Why would they be more white? I didn't understand what you meant by Indian, but that statement isn't always necessarily true. Not all mixed people come out physically resembling both groups . For example, many will come out looking more black or more white. A lot of people would never know Jason Kidd was half black, just like many never knew Halle Berry was half white.

Being that is it factual that the Dominican Republic is virtually split of white and black ancestry will leave a confusing identity in this country. If someone from the Dominican Republic were to move to Haiti (95% black) or Jamaica , they'd be much more noticed for their white physical features. However, in this country, black lineage is more noticed because there about 6 1/2 times the amount of European ancestry than African ancestry in this country. If you're half black-half white in this country, it's as if you're socially treated as if you are three quarters black and one quarter white.

That is going to leave the future of Dominican-Americans who spread out across this country and lose their Dominican identity in an awkward position. It will lean them blacker because of the physical demands of people who are racially split, but will lean more white because of economic assimilation and Catholicism. Social problems could be avoidable, but choices for who you'll continue will be limited if you only want to marry those who are mixed. That 27% won't have that problem. That 73% will.

[nyc0127]

''nyc0127 If you are white what difference does it make to you how someone identifies themselves? What is the purpose of all these long post? You are not Dominican, Black American, West Indian or Jennifer Lopez or am I mistaken? How do you know how any of these people feel as a group or individuals? You didn't identify yourself as Irish either. So what is your point? Everyone has the right to identify as what ever they want to identify as. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. It doesn't matter if someone is rich or poor as long as they are working and taking care of themselves and no one else is writing a check for them.''

You're right, it doesn't. This is not an argument about my individual situation though. Why should I be denoted a white American who gets tied into the broad generalization of oppression, even though my ancestors came to the Northeast poor as dirt and after slavery ended. Why should a Spaniard-Dominican or Spaniard-Puerto Rican not be judged an icon of oppressive descent in this country? Internationally they are.
Surely, clouds may block the sun. History never dies though.

Most of the reason why my posts are long is because I get into deep detail upon each point I'm responding to. If people didn't respond to me with interest, I wouldn't have made long posts like I did in my first informative message.

The fact is that no one self-identifies. It doesn't take a genius to realize that. People don't label themselves by nationality in this country. It's not even because it's useless, but because it's boring and annoying. You just don't here about it. If people took an interest in doing this, than maybe those who oppose me would be a legitimate argument. The part you didn't challenge of my post is the lack of usefulness of one's heritage though. I've even given examples of how heritage under some circumstances could be valuable. Regardless of what heritage it is you have, all of us know assimilation and the deleting of most or all of one's heritage is inevitable in this country.

In these messages, I gave people my thoroughly supported opinion of what those of Dominican descent in Washington Heights destinies are in a variety of manners (economically, ethnically, ect.) It isn't good or bad. It's what it is. I'm saying they'll end up as American as anyone else, except with a confusing racial question. Mexican-Americans have had a similar question raised in their identity because almost as many are a mixture of more than one race (60% is of mixed Spaniard/Indigenous ancestry). The difference is that there is no Western Hemisphere indigenous (statistically significant) ethnic identity in the United States (and definitely not most of the places where most Mexican immigrants move). There is a black identity in this country though that will come upon both black and half black Dominican descendants though.

I know it's possibly there will be parts I won't be right about. The one thing I'm sure about is the assimilation though. I acknowledge that I could be wrong about the racial question. It's worth thinking about though. I thoroughly described what would happen to those of Dominican descent, as it did to Puerto Ricans, Italian and Irish (in that order going backwards). History doesn't lie and life becomes more demanding and expensive in this city every day. It used to be that people would have a minimum of two generation of ethnic
identity pre-WW II. For Puerto Ricans and groups that came during the 50's and 60's, they were guaranteed one (and could have a second if they remained useful increments of their lineage like bilingualism).

Nowadays, at this pace of life and expense level in this city, getting one generation is a stretch. It wouldn't shock me if there was a day when immigrants lose all in this city. You could hope to remain useful increments, but aren't guaranteed that ethnic identity. Most people could care less if they continued marrying members of their same backgrounds. The only reason why they actually do anymore is primarily coincidental because of the areas where most live. I do know how some individual's feel, because I've talked to people of a variety of different backgrounds and situations. I'm not pulling this stuff out of the air. You're right that everyone has the right to self-identify (and believe what they want), but regardless of whether they do or not, it unarguably cannot go far.

The fact that you say it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks regarding their values of their heritage prove the ideals of individualism. If people of the same heritage don't have a unified psychology of this, how could a unified future exist? Being a member of an ethnic group is a collectivist ideal that gets pushed out of the way by people's individualism.

[nyc0127]

''just a reminder, stay on topic....''

I completely agree. I think that we should talk more about the future of the economical part of Washington Heights. That is the only part that will determine whether or not you stay in this place. Everything else is secondary, regardless of how you look at it. The ancestral descent of Washington Heights is reasonable to question, being that is the history of this place. I just think that it was disgusting that the only thing people were consumed with before I came on here to post was race and ethnicity.

In other cities, people don't think about race/ethnicity this much. It has been apart of this cities culture to think about race, which indirectly makes it much easier for the media to promote racism and a separation of social classes.

[crisp444]

NYC0127: The reason I used no statistics to back up my statement that I believe most Puerto Ricans in NYC are mixed race is because I simply have no statistics about this. I am surprised by your 62% figure and think that it is highly inflated. I understand that you probably took it from the census, which is the MOST reliable measure of this that the public has. People self-identify on the census and the truth is that many mixed-race Latin Americans, when asked what their race is, will respond that they are white. This is changing with the younger generations of Latin Americans in the US, most of whom seem to strongly identify with being a "minority" and as being non-white. I am not accusing you of making up the 62% white figure for Puerto Ricans in NYC; I am simply saying that due to self-reporting, I imagine that probably 1/3 or maybe even 1/2 of that number are choosing "white" instead of putting that they are mixed-rice. This may not even be their fault: how does someone truly know if they are mixed race? How non-white do you have to be to not be seen as white? Is 3/4 white considered non-mixed? How about 7/8? 15/16 surely will be considered non-mixed. The lines between mixed and non-mixed are arbitrarily drawn because race is a social construction and there are very few people who are a "pure" 100% of any one race. Maybe I'm 3% of African descent but it seems irrelevant in today's world, and besides, people would laugh at me if I told them that I was part black. Like SuperMario has said, people would laugh at him if he said he was "black" even though he is of mixed European and African descent. This further complicates our discussion, but I think it is necessary to mention in a discussion about race and racial mixing. I think the social aspects of "race" are the best topics of discussion and I don't want us to get caught up in trying to compute who is what percentage white or black because those concepts are, after all, invented by us humans. The social issues are the only thing that matter in this discussion.

I read a lot of census statistics about zip codes, neighborhoods, and cities and have walked around a variety of neighborhoods in NYC. I must say that I don't see very many people in heavily Puerto Rican neighborhoods who appear to be non-mixed white. Even walking around areas that are not majority Puerto Rican but that do have many Puerto Ricans, I see very few people speaking Spanish on the streets who appear to be non-mixed white. I understand that many - and most younger - Puerto Ricans are probably speaking English on the street but the point is that when I see people who I think "look" Hispanic but are speaking English, they appear to be mostly white but mixed with black. I easily believe that 60-80% of Puerto Ricans on the island are (pretty much) non-mixed white, but I have a very hard time believing that 62% of Puerto Ricans in NYC really are non-mixed white.

To tie into the topic in general (and to not lead the discussion off topic), I will say that the Puerto Ricans who came to the mainland and to NYC probably identified with being "white" although many of them were not non-mixed white. When their children and grandchildren grew up in the US, the mainstream culture that drove it into their heads that they were a non-white "minority" made many Puerto Rican young people identify with being something distinct from a mainstream American white person. As this trend continues, I predict that no one but the Puerto Ricans who really are non-mixed white (what I guess to be a substantial percentage, but not the majority in NYC) will actually put white on the census. They will either check both black and white or put "other," which is what almost half of Mexican-Americans put.

[nyc0127]

Just to start out, look at who you just recently agreed with though. Everything he has used in attempting to refute my argument about predominate African descent in the Dominican Republic was based on the fact I lacked statistical reference. I give him credit. He has a good argument. He proved some of his point, I proved some of mine. Wouldn't you be a hypocrite to claim he's made good messages if you lack the merit he has based his whole message on though?

Being that you lack statistical reference weakens your argument. What you believe people may ''appear'' to be might just be an optical illusion. You haven't been able to present even non-statistical oriented examples that would help such an argument. You said that ''Most Puerto Rican people I encounter in NYC are pretty mixed actually?'' How do you know this? Are you going around asking people? Are you tallying statistics in a notebook or something? It seems that others and yourself would be more accepting to the idea that people are actually more non-mixed in Puerto Rico itself. In fact, I forgot who it was, but they said virtually the majority in Puerto Rico are white (2/3+), with a large minority of mixed (i.e. 20%) and a smaller minority of full African descent (10%).

''People self-identify on the census and the truth is that many mixed-race Latin Americans, when asked what their race is, will respond that they are white.''

That statement is partly true, but not overwhelmingly. Approximately 49% of spanish-speaking Latin American descendants in the 2000 Census said they were one race (white). About 3% said black. The other 48% claimed they were of more than one race, other or didn't believe there was an appropriate category for them to mark for the Census. That could be understanding because the Census neglects indigenous heritage within Latin America as a means of an ethnicity when making brackets within Latin American ethnic groups. However, I don't find it difficult to believe that half of Latin American descendants (7 out of 14% of the U.S.) are of full (or almost full) European/Spaniard bloodlines.

''This is changing with the younger generations of Latin Americans in the US, most of whom seem to strongly identify with being a "minority" and as being non-white.''

This comment also isn't entirely true. As I described before, each person varies. Someone of Puerto Rican descent in a very diverse neighborhood in Queens by all means know that are uncultured, but often don't want to accept that. Some people come to the idea that because they ''look different'' than mainstream America (even though they really don't) that it makes it a social obligation to retaining their heritage. They're wrong though.

Young people are more liberal. They like to try new things, don't know as much information and watch too much TV. The media in this country (especially NYC) which constantly promotes the idea that only white (or people who resemble) them are beauty, along with the oppositional factoring of being an oppressive icon would make it reluctant for any young person to want to endure this title. The older people get though, the less they care about this. They also learn a thing through many years of working in America called ''white privilege.'' When most people hear that term, they believe it automatically means preferring white and disliking non-whites.

That isn't even it though. It's more so the fact of expectation. It's kind of like if you were to have an electrician come over your house and he were white, you wouldn't remember that a few weeks later. If he were black though, you would (if you were reminded). If you thought or cared about this kind of thing, than you'd be a bigot. It's a thing of majority rule. It's just like the same thing if you heard a guy named John was going to be your accountant who you never met (even in a place as diverse as Queens), you'd expect a white guy without even thinking about it. And the fact that you might just call him a guy rather than the ''Black guy'' or ''Asian guy'' to identify to someone else that might be ringing the doorbell would also be an indication of white privilege.

Therefore, many people who are either mixed or fall along the society's lines of gray territory will lean towards the social feeling of whiteness. Regardless of how the youth feels about their racial classification isn't so much their choice. It's the society's choice. For who marks what on a census report is strictly individualized. People know little nor care for that kind of stuff. The fact that Puerto Ricans have no identity and that the overwhelming majority are camouflage to the European-American population would refute the possibility of them being labeled a ''minority.''

That basically means each person of Puerto Rican descent is on their own when it comes to classification purposes. It means their is no unity, because no such thing exists. There is no community, common interest, ethnicity or anything besides sharing the fact their ancestors came from the same island a half a century ago. That only goes so far and the importance dwindles every year.

Do not take what ever a liberal ''young'' person of Latin-American descent who chooses to includes himself in the term ''minority'' seriously. It doesn't sound cool to be white. It sounds dry. What other way could I put it? The only reason why they're doing that is to feel cool for the time being. It's a phase that dies by the time they hit their mid-20's. By that point, they'd likely have a new way of looking at things and would be able to give you a clearer response.

I know you haven't accused me of ''making up any statistics'', but you don't need to say it like that. There would be no reason for me to. I had to research hard to find not just that statistic, but other ones you typically wouldn't see on a broad census forum. That is what the Adobe Reader is for. They got all these little statistics that you can insert into the Excel program so it doesn't hurt your eyes.

''I am simply saying that due to self-reporting, I imagine that probably 1/3 or maybe even 1/2 of that number are choosing "white" instead of putting that they are mixed-rice. This may not even be their fault: how does someone truly know if they are mixed race?''

It isn't that hard to know you're multi-racial. It isn't that hard. The funny thing is that it's okay in this country to look at someone and immediately determine if they're white or black. You wouldn't even be judged as a bigot if you were to do this. Within white and black Latin Americans, why should this be any different? Because of the outside possibility a white-Dominican might be 1/8 black? I'd say the bigger dispute is knowing how mixed you might be (if you are mixed).

There are ways, but you need to research this kind of thing. I don't know how difficult it is to know if you're mixed though. If you were white (and 1/16 black) or visa versa, I could see the point you've made. It would be difficult to know. I don't believe being 6.25% of something qualifies for being multi-racial though. Being 3/4 of one thing is being mixed. Each society has a different interpretation of this, but anything below 1/8 is statistically insignificant. You need to at least have one great-grand father who represents an ethnicity to say you are part of that. If that weren't true, than plenty of white southerners in this country would be ''multi-racial'' because of tiny bits of Native American ancestry.

Truthfully, you have to be well-acquainted with both your heritage and family trees to know ''how mixed'' you might be. People do hold onto family albums. People pass on information. In my opinion, it would be severely ignorant to speak about your heritage in a prideful manner if you didn't even know this kind of information. People go right and ahead and do it anyway in this city all the time though.

I agree, race is a social construction. Simple physical lineage has nothing to do with that though. Just like how Mead described, you could literally look at this from a scientific/physical way. A person literally moving from place A to place B. I'm not asking that they know what part of West Africa or Spain their ancestors are from within that. That would be too difficult for even the most intelligent. It can be broadened to the idea of continental geography (Europe and Africa). Black and white is just another way of saying that. You should at least know which side your family is apart of. Believe me, it isn't hard.

Latin America has had a long history of repressing this history. It's as if people go with the theory you'd see in the movie Prince of the Tides. It was about someone who got molested by prisoners who broke out of a South Carolina prison in the 50's, but in order to not ''taint'' their public image, they wouldn't report it to the police. The longer the main actor repressed it, the more depressed and psychologically tormented he became. For as pathetic as America is too immature to get over the ideals of pounding race over and over, it's still more admirable than digging a fifty foot hole in the ground and throwing slavery there like Latin America has done with their history of enslavement.

I don't know if he said people would laugh at him if he said he was ''black'', but I don't know his exact percentages. He's described himself to lean more white, so that might be understandable. If he were to say that, people might just assume he's part African-American, part European-American. No assumption is ever good. No one should expect for people to know what they are like the cover of a book. Life isn't that easy. If you want to be that simple, than you just might be that simple of a person.

You're right that social aspects is what really matters. People judge with the forms of social construction they've come about to judge with though. That comes by means of physical appearance. America surrounds much more of their sociology of this around the physical part of things than Latin Americans. That is why if I put emphasis on someone knowing their percentages (or a general idea), it would only be a reference to simple mathematical biology. If you're of more African descent than European, than it's only natural that it will be more likely you'll look black or closer to black. Same thing visa versa.

How would you know who is non-mixed white though? What is the definition of that? You're critiquing within white? Sure, people might have an idea of who's Jewish because their approximately half of NYC's European-American population (as well as some physical features), but is it right to just assume? Not in this country. However, it may be more accepted in other parts of the world.

When you say ''heavily'' Puerto Rican numbers, it's difficult to know what you mean be heavily. I know you aren't even saying that in reference to culture or ethnic-identity, but rather literal lineage. The Bronx is 24% of Puerto Rican descent. They're about half of Latin-American descendants. Dominicans are about 20%. I can't see one individual neighborhood in the Bronx going well above 50% Puerto Rican descent though. The Bronx is about as foreign born (including non U.S. mainland) as New York City (38%). Some people of Puerto Rican descent match that criteria (they'd have to be at minimum 40+), but no where near 38% were born outside of the U.S.

With the highest peak neighborhoods that are about half of Puerto Rican descent, Dominican heritage is high too. You'll see other more recent ethnic groups too like West Indians, Eastern Europeans (Albanians and Russians), Asians and West Africans (some neighborhoods in the Bronx have high population from Ghana).Many of these areas are immigrant friendly in sense of renting, work and the fact that many share that they are full of foreign-born people. Most of these neighborhoods are working-class. They're kind of like less-accelerated Elmhurst's.

Just the majority of the lineage of those descendants, that doesn't equate the denotation of saying those are ''Puerto Rican neighborhoods.'' Some people of Puerto Rican descent resemble the working-class, some represent middle-class stature. It goes by an individual basis. The reason why you might not believe there are many ''all-American'' looking white people there is because of the high level of foreign exposure and diversity. As I noted before though, Puerto Ricans are not seen as cultured within these well-cultured neighborhoods. They are the real Americans there. When you walk around these working-class neighborhoods of the Bronx you need to stop judging with your eyes (like a typical American), but rather your common sense.

It's very difficult to know an area is Puerto Rican or not by simply looking. It's difficult to know any neighborhood is for that matter. There is limited information on this kind of thing. For what ever information that exists is likely to be ran by a bias organization as well. The statistics/demographics you've likely read about those zip codes/neighborhoods are vague. They likely are only to say the term ''Hispanic.'' They don't go into detail. The total population of Latin Americans doesn't always necessarily equate to the divisibility of Puerto Rican descendants being half of that.

''I understand that many - and most younger - Puerto Ricans are probably speaking English on the street but the point is that when I see people who I think "look" Hispanic but are speaking English, they appear to be mostly white but mixed with black.''

To myself, the second part of this statement controversial point of your message. Before I get to that though, why would you use the word ''probably'' as if you weren't sure? Like I said, 10% of NYC was of Puerto Rican descent in 1970. 9.9% of NYC was in 2000. Very few people came after 1970 as it was a rough time in America (just like now - a bad war they lost, stagflation and corruption) that had a slowed immigration pattern for this whole country (including NYC). If you are born in the United States, it is fully understood that the only language you would be voluntarily speaking is English (especially since many have American-born parents too).

Even for those Puerto Rican grandparent and parents who were intelligent enough to properly pass on the Spanish language to their grandchildren, it just isn't apart of this city or country's culture to speak in a secondary language. Most find it annoying and a lot of Americans (that aren't bilingual) take it insulting because it belittles their ego. Most people aren't like yourself. As you noted, the culture of Latin-American descendants in Miami varies much differently New York's. Miami centers their pride around their culture, education and bilingualism. New Yorkers mesh to their concept of cultural pride with New York's racially-motivated sociology. That not just helped their culture become destroyed at an accelerated pace, but left a bad linger on the last day's of their ''ethnic identity.''

The part that I took controversially was where you said ''the point is that when I see people who I think 'look Hispanic' are speaking Spanish''. The key words there were ''look Hispanic.'' You're much more intelligent than that. It's one thing to self-identify with a term that the U.S. government and media politically tainted, but to play within their lines is sad. Everyone in Spain and educated Miami residents would smack you making such an insinuation.

My point is, what's ''looking Hispanic?'' What is the definition? Did the media teach your brain what a ''Hispanic'' is supposed to look like? Tell me. Is it Sammy Sosa? Is it Washington National's coach Manny Acta? Is it John Leguizamo? Is it Peru's former president of Japanese descent? Is it Vinny Castilla? There is no clear definition because the term doesn't exist in those terms. Tell me what the definition is. Tell me what your interpretation is supposed to be and tell me whether or not that came from the media.

How would someone in Spain interpret that? What would looking that mean to them? I doubt they'd cram a largely diverse one-eigth of the world into one little rubik's cube all because they speak the same language. They aren't America and wouldn't stoop to our low-class standards. They wouldn't throw importance into this kind of political device because they know it'd disgrace their culture and nation.

Think about it like this. What's looking American? Or Canadian? Sure, the ideal of white privilege I presented before would say a boring 5'10'' white guy with brown hair, but is that necessarily right? Within America, Canada and just about all of the Western Hemisphere is representative of secondary-world's that were created in the last 500 years. The term Hispanic or it's enforced social complexity are nothing comparable to that. The term Hispanic doesn't exist as an identity in the Latin-American world not because of America's political incorrectness, but rather the fact they don't need one rukic's cube to make themselves feel special. They have much better identifications that would be more representative of their culture anyway.

Being that you agree that 60-80% of Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico are white (assume 70%) and know that 10% is black, than you're believing that 20% is mixed. Even for those who reported though, 28% claimed to be mixed (which well-surpassed the 20% figure). Within the U.S. , you've told me that it's like that one-third to one-half didn't report they were mixed. I'll use a number in between those (40%). Basically, you've said that about 25% out of that 62% is under the categorization ''unmarked mixed.'' You didn't refute the idea that 1/10 of Puerto Rican descent in NYC are black (likewise to Puerto Rico), so I'm taking it we both agree with the census on that.

That would mean that 25% you purposed are of ''unmarked mixes'' would get added onto the other 28% that already reported themselves as mixed. Doesn't it seem a little peculiar that about you believe over 50% of Puerto Rican descent in NYC are significantly racially mixed, where as only 20% in Puerto Rico are (which you openly said - and we are on the same page about). Was there something for that 20% in the U.S. that didn't exist for the rest of the population? They likely would have been above that 10% of African descent as far as the social hierarchy was concerned (especially during the 50's and 60's). The ones of African descent didn't move anymore.

America (and especially New York) also injected the new arrivals from Puerto Rico during the Civil Rights era with the ideals of constant reminders of separate racial classes. This would likely separate the white Puerto Ricans from the black Puerto Ricans, even likely non-promoting the idea of integrating within different races of Puerto Ricans. That would mean that for every white-Puerto Rican that wasn't coming, a mix one would have taken their place (being that the black number was the same either way). To myself though, I don't know why there would be a significant disproportion of mixed-race Puerto Rican descendants to white-Puerto Ricans. Maybe you could tell me something I don't know.

''To tie into the topic in general (and to not lead the discussion off topic), I will say that the Puerto Ricans who came to the mainland and to NYC probably identified with being "white" although many of them were not non-mixed white. When their children and grandchildren grew up in the US, the mainstream culture that drove it into their heads that they were a non-white "minority" made many Puerto Rican young people identify with being something distinct from a mainstream American white person. As this trend continues, I predict that no one but the Puerto Ricans who really are non-mixed white (what I guess to be a substantial percentage, but not the majority in NYC) will actually put white on the census. They will either check both black and white or put "other," which is what almost half of Mexican-Americans put.''

Although race is a form of social construction, it is something that takes a long period of time (possibly centuries) to develop. The concrete ideas of whiteness and blackness in this country came in the early 1800's. Although immigrants and later-imported slaves were likely non-representative of that, the ending/slowing down of the slave trade had to coincide with creation of what would become the southern culture ; which led to the idea of ''race'' over a century before it was instituted.

With that being said, for as powerful as the mainstream culture or media may been seemed, it wasn't at the level where it could re-construct the social identity of one's race. If that were true, all would. The fact is that people tied being poor, foreign and non-English speaking (in the beginning) as a means for being ''non-white.'' The word American basically became the word white to their eyes. On the other hand in Puerto Rico though, white basically means one of Spaniard descent.

I do give respect to the identity of first-generation Puerto Rican-Americans (in order to qualify for this both of your parents would have to have lived there until 18). They had the same thing what first-generation Dominican-Americans had. They lived in a confusing and controversial time (i.e. the implementation of the term Hispanic). There was much less help for immigrants back than. That is why many first-generation Puerto Ricans didn't live as good as Dominican-Americans did in this era.

However, to acknowledge Puerto-Rican American ethnic identity is a complete joke now. One funny thing you said they speak English on the ''streets.'' What streets? Try their XBOX 360's and Playstation 3's inside their bedrooms. You act as if that youth has a choice to make. You act as if young Puerto Rican people exist. You may as well call them the blue-men group, because they're ancestry is about as useless as that. The same could be said to mine. You believe that young people of Puerto Rican descent are actually heard. I'd be surprised if they even marked for the census. No one listens to what they have to say. one even knows nor cares whether they exist or not.

People didn't see Italian-Americans who assimilated by the 60's and 70's who chose to rave on about their culture as anything more than an annoying nuisance (similar to Puerto Rican descendants of today). That same self-imploded trash could be comparable to those trashy hula-hoop earings and $9.99 necklaces you'd see the ''youth'' of the middle-class parents who are crying for attention. I'm sure John Travolta and his fish face from Saturday Night Fever as an icon of annoyance and self-imploded trash.

I think it's safe to say I need some sleep now lol Thank god I'm off tomorrow.

[Ogden Assassin]

NYC0127: would it be fair to say that the white political/economic leadership from Nixon on down envisioned the "Hispanic race" playing a role here akin to the Asians (Indian/Pakistani) in apartheid South Africa?

[Guywithacause]

This is a very strange conversation. I believe the answer to this question has already been solved by scientists. There was recently a study done on the genetic code of Puerto Rican males and females on the island. According to the study, women were about 60% Indian, 27%, 12% Caucasian while men were about 70% Spanish, 10% indian, and 20% African. The discrepancy is due to the way genes are passed on the maternal and paternal side.

This clearly shows what history has proven: European conquerors (all male) swarmed the island, intermarrying with the only women that were here, the indians, as well as the african slaves that were brought over. The same, or similar, I suspect, can be said for other Islands in the Carribean, with varying mixtures due to population differences.

Indigenous Puerto Rico* DNA evidence upsets established history

I dunno what any of this has to do with the future of Washington Heights however.

[Ogden Assassin]

Originally Posted by Guywithacause

This is a very strange conversation. I believe the answer to this question has already been solved by scientists. There was recently a study done on the genetic code of Puerto Rican males and females on the island. According to the study, women were about 60% Indian, 27%, 12% Caucasian while men were about 70% Spanish, 10% indian, and 20% African. The discrepancy is due to the way genes are passed on the maternal and paternal side.

This clearly shows what history has proven: European conquerors (all male) swarmed the island, intermarrying with the only women that were here, the indians, as well as the african slaves that were brought over. The same, or similar, I suspect, can be said for other Islands in the Carribean, with varying mixtures due to population differences.

Indigenous Puerto Rico* DNA evidence upsets established history

I dunno what any of this has to do with the future of Washington Heights however.

Guy, I don't think NYC's primary concern was with x and y chromosomes but with the socio-political implications of racial/ethnic constructs.