Fullerton Neighborhoods (San Jose, Beverly Hills, Imperial: homes, buy, schools)

[mdmagana]

I lived in 92835 from 1980 until 2005.

Anywhere in that zip code is a safe bet. Sunny Hills has experienced an increase in Asian population, but I would be no means call it all Korean. I agree with a previous posted comments about... you probably want to stay away from the aread between commonwealth and valencia. It is very hispanic and there are some gangs. that being said, I have never been over there and been in fear for my safety... it just isnt somewhere I would want to live.

There are some decent neighborhoods in West Fullerton. (Around Nicholas Jr. High) that are less expensive than north Fullerton. I would have no problem living there... but 92835 is definately much nicer.

As for St. Jude Medical center... they have a lot of construction going on and are adding a lot. I have never been impressed with St. Judes. It is a damn fine hospital by most peoples standards, but it is not the best of the best in southern california. If you don't mind a small drive, go to Hoag hospital in Newport Beach... that is the best of the best in OC... anyone who tells you otherwise does not know what they are talking about. A little closer to Fullerton is Whittier Presbyterian. Both of those are far better than St. Jude's... but there really is nothing wrong with St. Judes. If your family is healthy, then St. Judes should be fine... but if your family, like mine, has more than its fair share of heath issues, you will find the best doctors in the OC at Hoag.

[Justabystander]

Just to clarify, in case anyone is reading this after so much time. I am not racist, nor a xenophobe, being from an ethnic background. I grew up in Fullerton, but moved away right after high school in the early eighties, as did my family. So the prospect of seeing solidly Korean neighborhoods upon coming back was new to me. I grew up in Sunny Hills with Japanese, Italians, Mexicans, and all other races coexisting together in a nice environment, less crowded, and certainly less ghettoized. Xenophobia is the fear of something new and different. I love new and different, and relish ethic diversity and understanding. It is only when one group, be it Irish, Korean, African-American or whatever overwhelm and dominate a neighborhood so much so that I decide that that neighborhood is not for me, because I then feel like the outsider because I do not speak the language or have commonalities like others in the community. Does this make me racist? I don't think so. Does it mean that I don't like Koreans? Absolutely not. But when I would be the only one of my ethnic group in an area that is solidly of another ethnic group that has a different language and customs that are foreign to me, I have to double think whether my kids would get a balanced view of the world. Fullerton has the 9th largest Korean population after San Jose in the United States, and is just behind a small town called Chicago. Give me diversity, not ghettoization. That is not racist, just a reality.


OTE=Fullertonian;1071211]I was going to describe Justabystander's comments as anachronistic because they refer to the 70s until I went back and read that this person seems to have moved out of Fullerton recently. I guess they more aptly fall under xenophobic which by the way does not mean racist. He or she just finds other people's culture by way of race foreign and not up to the white, Midwestern standard of "normal."

I find it interesting that this person was shocked to see "Koreans" as if they were recent immigrants who just showed up yesterday. There has been a sizable Korean and Hispanic population in the OC and more so in Fullerton for over twenty years. Fullerton's outstanding schools attracted ambitious, forward thinking families (many of whom were Korean) and their kids have been a reason for all the Ivy league bound graduates from Fullerton's high schools.

I'd say there are more Koreans now because they as a nation recently fell in love with (became fanatical about) golf and Fullerton has several nice courses, public and private. Moreover, professionals and business owners have been radiating out of LA's Koreatown as they have become more integrated in the mainstream.

Btw I admire Midwestern values but the whole xenophobe aspect just ruins it. Culture and values aren't dictated solely by race.[/quote]

[Fullertonian]

Xenophobia as defined by Merriam Webster: The fear and hatred of foreigners or of anything that is strange and foreign.

Xenophobe was too harsh of a word. You probably don't fear or hate foreigners. However, xenophobia finds its roots in perspectives such as yours because they are the beginnings of fear and hatred.

Xenophobes are John and Ken on KFI 640 who said today that illegal immigrants caused the subprime lending crisis. Mind you he (I don't know which one he was, John or Ken... they don't identify themselves on the air) admitted that he didn't have any stats to back his "hunch" up. But he was sure that illegals were taking out subprime loans left and right, defaulting and walking away from their homes. That's why all illegals should be locked up and sent back to wherever they came from... Never mind that "white" institutions such as Moody's and Standard & Poor caused the crisis by rating junk loans AAA (nearly bulletproof), which "white" investment banks such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers took and sold off to hundreds of faceless investors abroad, and thereby injecting worthless notes into the market and no easy way to correct the problem.

Just because you like diversity doesn't mean that you are not xenophobic or on the road to xenophobia. You have a strong preference to stay away from concentrated groups of Irish, Korean, African American, etc. because they make you feel uncomfortable.

You're not a bad person but you sure choose your words poorly probably because you haven't taken the time to engage this community. This makes me wonder why you are speaking on a topic that you are ignorant of which reminds me of why I chose to respond. But I digress... "Ghettoization?" Pardon me? Obviously you think that these people are poor. Poor in spirit? I dunno. Upwards to 60% attend Christian churches on Sundays. Dang it. I digress again... My point: These "new" Korean residents are driving the prices of houses UP. They have money and education. They are financially sophisticated and affected by the same lax lending standards as the rest of America and are in for a rude awakening when their ARMs adjust this year and next.

As for reality, I don't know the last time you checked but a majority of the world's population is Asian. Concentrations of Koreans or Chinese or Bukina Faso loin cloth wearing natives just don't fit into your reality or the reality that you want your children to see.

"Ghettoization?" Dude... If you were a tv, I would throw my remote at you.

Originally Posted by Justabystander

Just to clarify, in case anyone is reading this after so much time. I am not racist, nor a xenophobe, being from an ethnic background. I grew up in Fullerton, but moved away right after high school in the early eighties, as did my family. So the prospect of seeing solidly Korean neighborhoods upon coming back was new to me. I grew up in Sunny Hills with Japanese, Italians, Mexicans, and all other races coexisting together in a nice environment, less crowded, and certainly less ghettoized. Xenophobia is the fear of something new and different. I love new and different, and relish ethic diversity and understanding. It is only when one group, be it Irish, Korean, African-American or whatever overwhelm and dominate a neighborhood so much so that I decide that that neighborhood is not for me, because I then feel like the outsider because I do not speak the language or have commonalities like others in the community. Does this make me racist? I don't think so. Does it mean that I don't like Koreans? Absolutely not. But when I would be the only one of my ethnic group in an area that is solidly of another ethnic group that has a different language and customs that are foreign to me, I have to double think whether my kids would get a balanced view of the world. Fullerton has the 9th largest Korean population after San Jose in the United States, and is just behind a small town called Chicago. Give me diversity, not ghettoization. That is not racist, just a reality.


OTE=Fullertonian;1071211]I was going to describe Justabystander's comments as anachronistic because they refer to the 70s until I went back and read that this person seems to have moved out of Fullerton recently. I guess they more aptly fall under xenophobic which by the way does not mean racist. He or she just finds other people's culture by way of race foreign and not up to the white, Midwestern standard of "normal."

I find it interesting that this person was shocked to see "Koreans" as if they were recent immigrants who just showed up yesterday. There has been a sizable Korean and Hispanic population in the OC and more so in Fullerton for over twenty years. Fullerton's outstanding schools attracted ambitious, forward thinking families (many of whom were Korean) and their kids have been a reason for all the Ivy league bound graduates from Fullerton's high schools.

I'd say there are more Koreans now because they as a nation recently fell in love with (became fanatical about) golf and Fullerton has several nice courses, public and private. Moreover, professionals and business owners have been radiating out of LA's Koreatown as they have become more integrated in the mainstream.

Btw I admire Midwestern values but the whole xenophobe aspect just ruins it. Culture and values aren't dictated solely by race.

[/quote]

[Justabystander]

I am back for the last time, so put your remote away, Fullertonian !! I do not know whether I am responding to a person of Korean decent or not, so I will, as you say, watch my words carefully. Fullerton in the year 2000 was the 9th most populated city by Koreans in America, and according to the internet, picking up steam, so by 2007 it may be 7th or 6th, passing up far larger cities that were directly ahead of it such as San Jose and Chicago, all in a city whose population is 130k. If you google the term "Korean population Fullerton" an amazing amount of information comes online. The term "ghetto" is not an economic term, but a term used for ethnic concentrations of one type of ethnicity. As you recall, there were Jewish ghettos in Germany, and are North African ghettos outside of Paris, as well as african-american ghettos in places like south central and the south side of Chicago. This does not mean that they are necessarily poor, just exclusionary of other ethnicities. Fullertonian, for a guy who can use the word anachronistic in a sentence, you sure need to go to the dictionary more often, dude.

I was told by my friends who remained in Fullerton that there are entire neighborhoods, such as a new development on the old Hughes property by Albertsons, that are 100% Korean. This is a classic definition of a ghetto, even though they may be well educated, church going, affluent, law abiding folks, which I bet they are. These people, for whatever reason, choose to live in a solidly Korean area, to the exclusion of others. My friend also told me his sister tried to date a Korean, but her family wanted nothing to do with her because she was non-Korean. So when I say that I would be uncomfortable living, as a non-Asian, in such an area, there is no reason to call me a racist or xenophobe, because if anyone is racist, it is these people who choose to live in a neighborhood entirely made up of their own, and to continue to concentrate in one area, instead of integrating in other areas of the county.

I have no idea of how old you are, but I am in my 40's, having left in my late teens from Fullerton, and have lived on the east coast and the midwest. To you, living in a solidly ethnic environment may seem quite normal, but to me it is not. It is quite different from the Fullerton I knew in the 70's; there were open spaces, fresh subdivisions that were diverse, and much less crowded.
The standard of living to me seems to be to have gone down, not up, even with some upscale subdivisions being built in recent years. So when I visited recently, for the first time in five years, and the first time in many years for a time that lasted more than an hour, I was surprised at all the change in the area.

I was angered at the term racist and xenophobe, and think that anyone that lables someone because they choose to live in an area that is integrated over a completely, or heading toward completely, ethnic pocket that chooses to congregate amongst themselves in enclaves is a complete idiot.

As for the sub prime crap, I have no idea what you are talking about, dude. Try travelling outside of California to see a balanced view of the world.
So put the remote away, and peace to you, my friend from Fullerton.

Originally Posted by Fullertonian

Xenophobia as defined by Merriam Webster: The fear and hatred of foreigners or of anything that is strange and foreign.

Xenophobe was too harsh of a word. You probably don't fear or hate foreigners. However, xenophobia finds its roots in perspectives such as yours because they are the beginnings of fear and hatred.

Xenophobes are John and Ken on KFI 640 who said today that illegal immigrants caused the subprime lending crisis. Mind you he (I don't know which one he was, John or Ken... they don't identify themselves on the air) admitted that he didn't have any stats to back his "hunch" up. But he was sure that illegals were taking out subprime loans left and right, defaulting and walking away from their homes. That's why all illegals should be locked up and sent back to wherever they came from... Never mind that "white" institutions such as Moody's and Standard & Poor caused the crisis by rating junk loans AAA (nearly bulletproof), which "white" investment banks such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers took and sold off to hundreds of faceless investors abroad, and thereby injecting worthless notes into the market and no easy way to correct the problem.

Just because you like diversity doesn't mean that you are not xenophobic or on the road to xenophobia. You have a strong preference to stay away from concentrated groups of Irish, Korean, African American, etc. because they make you feel uncomfortable.

You're not a bad person but you sure choose your words poorly probably because you haven't taken the time to engage this community. This makes me wonder why you are speaking on a topic that you are ignorant of which reminds me of why I chose to respond. But I digress... "Ghettoization?" Pardon me? Obviously you think that these people are poor. Poor in spirit? I dunno. Upwards to 60% attend Christian churches on Sundays. Dang it. I digress again... My point: These "new" Korean residents are driving the prices of houses UP. They have money and education. They are financially sophisticated and affected by the same lax lending standards as the rest of America and are in for a rude awakening when their ARMs adjust this year and next.

As for reality, I don't know the last time you checked but a majority of the world's population is Asian. Concentrations of Koreans or Chinese or Bukina Faso loin cloth wearing natives just don't fit into your reality or the reality that you want your children to see.

"Ghettoization?" Dude... If you were a tv, I would throw my remote at you.

[/quote]

[YLresident]

Ghetto generally has negative connotations in modern speech. Immigrant or ethnic enclave would've probably been a better choice to avoid the backlash.

Many parents who hold tight to old traditions, regardless of culture/color, don't want their children dating outside of their approved criteria, race or otherwise (religion, political beliefs, etc.). Children grow up and become adults believing what their parents raised to them believe--just like they do with religion. And if the children are more modern, well, old and new generations clash all the time--your friend's sister's partner probably wasn't prepared to do battle with their parents over the race/culture issue.

There are a lot of White people in my neighborhood--in fact, other than a sprinkling of color here and there, it's almost entirely White. The colored folks do just fine--we just teach our neighbors about our different cultural aspects as the topic comes up. If the majority of Korean families in those select sections of Fullerton are closed-minded or unfriendly, then I would definitely have an issue living there, half-Asian or not (most full-Asians view me as White, anyway), but if they're friendly and tolerant and willing to share their culture with me, then why the heck not?

If I ever had kids, maybe they could learn another language there... ^_^

But being the minority in a neighborhood isn't for anybody, and I can totally understand a White family (or very Americanized non-White family) being uncomfortable with the idea of moving into a neighborhood with a majority immigrant non-White population. Going from a majority (be it color or culture--American to Korean, Mexican... or even Californian to Midwestern/East Coast) member to a minority member can be quite daunting. It's not easy to stand tall by yourself. And if I felt I couldn't handle being in the minority or thought that the majority wasn't going to accept me, then I would definitely be uncomfortable, too.

[Disgusted]

I've been a Fullerton resident for 15 years now. In that time, I have seen what was once a typical American neighborhood slowly convert into a predominently non-American neighborhood.

In the case of Amerige Heights for example -the new development carved out of Sunny Hills where the Hughes plant used to be- the new inhabitants are roughly 95% asian. They speak asian languages, they post signs in asian (I won't even bother to differentiate which asian languages ..who cares?) and they have -in short- converted a sizeable chunk of what was once AMERICAN territory into ASIA.

Am I a racist?. Well, if feeling uncomfortable living in your own country while surrounded by foreigners who make NO EFFORT to assimilate constitutes racism, then I guess I would be the Imperial Wizard himself.

I feel like I'm in Seoul right now walking thru Fullerton. If I wanted to live in Seoul I would have moved there, but I didn't. Seoul moved into Fullerton instead. I'm NOT against racial integration at all. But there is no integration to speak of in this case. Nor is there any diversity like back east, where SCORES of different cultures and ethnias mix vibrantly. In that sense, Fullerton is DEFINITELY an urban ghetto according to the classic sociological definition of the term.

[Fullertonian]

I wish my remote had an off button for some of these posts. But alas it's a free country... Actually I'm glad that we have this forum because it allows me to post my mental diarrhea.

Justabystander, I had a problem with your use of the term "ghetto." I am race neutral. I'm of the belief that there's racism in this world so deal with it. Can we be more civil? Definitely. I make no value judgment regarding racism until people start infringing upon my rights or the rights of others.

I was really annoyed by your use of WORDS. I didn't say watch your words as if to threaten but just know what a word means for heaven's sake. I'm confused at our suggestion to use the DICTIONARY because that's what I was going to suggest you do. In no definition of the word "ghetto" that I can look up does this connote something positive nor is it neutral simply describing a state of affairs. Rather it is something negative rooted in a history of oppression. You think its negative because any concentration of ethnicities is bad. So I guess that you will tell your friends to stay away from Martha's Vineyard or Newport Beach? Under your definition you would say to all the white yuppies and real estate developers "Disperse! You are living in a ghetto!" There are a lot of Persians in Beverly Hills. In fact this is the largest concentration of Persians in the United States. They should leave the ghetto too! They are really really slumming it!

The term ghetto refers to ethnic enclaves of people who live in concentrated neighborhoods either because someone forced them or that they have a negative social or economic reason. Korean Americans don't qualify for any of the above. They choose to live there because they can. They have the money and want the education. They didn't call each other up one day and say "Hey! Lets live together because we want to exclude other races!" They were attracted to the schools and were brought together by shared values which is quite different from excluding oneself because of stereotypes which is a component of your new up to date interpretation of the word "ghetto." I guess there is exclusion by the fact of these shared values but they will not rise up and make a ruckus if Whites, Mexicans, African Americans or any other race chooses to live in that neighborhood. If you have the money then live there. That's why I think your assertions are so preposterous and bordering on xenophobic.

Seeing that you think everyone who chooses to live in new, comfortable, aesthetically pleasing housing with top schools and who happen to be Korean to be living in a ghetto I have nothing to say because your definition of ghetto is your own. Just know that its not the right definition.

As for your suggestions to live somewhere that isn't so ethnically concentrated, I live in the so called "nice" part of Fullerton in the 92835. I was born in Newport Beach, grew up in Orange Hills, went to school in Los Angeles and lived in the following cities some ethnically diverse some not: Seattle, San Diego, D.C., Dallas, Chicago, New York, Boston, Seoul, and even a stint in Atlanta. I've visited nearly every major U.S. city in every U.S. state except Alaska which I'm planning on doing soon. I've also visited more countries that I can remember. Why Fullerton? I ask myself this a lot and answer its because my family is here. Then I ask myself again why Fullerton?

As for the sub prime "crap?" I was making a rather long winded analogy and because of my background in real estate got carried away. My point was that xenophobes blame a particular race for reasons completely unrelated to reality. Their accusations are based on emotion and sense of superiority which is why they can pull figures out of thin air to justify their "hunches."

Yes, I can see why you think that over concentrations of any ethnicity is bad. But ghetto is the wrong word. It's demeaning and implies inferiority for whatever reason. In the end that is why my friend it is used misappropriately in this context.

As for the new poster "Disgusted"... I studied sociology and political science at a decent school... actually a pretty damn good school for sociology. There is no "classic sociological definition" of "urban ghetto." Urban ghetto is an economic term used to describe neighborhoods where more than 40% of the residents are poor. Like I said go read the DICTIONARY.

Ahhh... all done... Remote control: Power off.

Originally Posted by Justabystander

I am back for the last time, so put your remote away, Fullertonian !! I do not know whether I am responding to a person of Korean decent or not, so I will, as you say, watch my words carefully. Fullerton in the year 2000 was the 9th most populated city by Koreans in America, and according to the internet, picking up steam, so by 2007 it may be 7th or 6th, passing up far larger cities that were directly ahead of it such as San Jose and Chicago, all in a city whose population is 130k. If you google the term "Korean population Fullerton" an amazing amount of information comes online. The term "ghetto" is not an economic term, but a term used for ethnic concentrations of one type of ethnicity. As you recall, there were Jewish ghettos in Germany, and are North African ghettos outside of Paris, as well as african-american ghettos in places like south central and the south side of Chicago. This does not mean that they are necessarily poor, just exclusionary of other ethnicities. Fullertonian, for a guy who can use the word anachronistic in a sentence, you sure need to go to the dictionary more often, dude.

I was told by my friends who remained in Fullerton that there are entire neighborhoods, such as a new development on the old Hughes property by Albertsons, that are 100% Korean. This is a classic definition of a ghetto, even though they may be well educated, church going, affluent, law abiding folks, which I bet they are. These people, for whatever reason, choose to live in a solidly Korean area, to the exclusion of others. My friend also told me his sister tried to date a Korean, but her family wanted nothing to do with her because she was non-Korean. So when I say that I would be uncomfortable living, as a non-Asian, in such an area, there is no reason to call me a racist or xenophobe, because if anyone is racist, it is these people who choose to live in a neighborhood entirely made up of their own, and to continue to concentrate in one area, instead of integrating in other areas of the county.

I have no idea of how old you are, but I am in my 40's, having left in my late teens from Fullerton, and have lived on the east coast and the midwest. To you, living in a solidly ethnic environment may seem quite normal, but to me it is not. It is quite different from the Fullerton I knew in the 70's; there were open spaces, fresh subdivisions that were diverse, and much less crowded.
The standard of living to me seems to be to have gone down, not up, even with some upscale subdivisions being built in recent years. So when I visited recently, for the first time in five years, and the first time in many years for a time that lasted more than an hour, I was surprised at all the change in the area.

I was angered at the term racist and xenophobe, and think that anyone that lables someone because they choose to live in an area that is integrated over a completely, or heading toward completely, ethnic pocket that chooses to congregate amongst themselves in enclaves is a complete idiot.

As for the sub prime crap, I have no idea what you are talking about, dude. Try travelling outside of California to see a balanced view of the world.
So put the remote away, and peace to you, my friend from Fullerton.

[/quote]

[Disgusted]

Originally Posted by Fullertonian

As for the new poster "Disgusted"... I studied sociology and political science at a decent school... actually a pretty damn good school for sociology. There is no "classic sociological definition" of "urban ghetto." Urban ghetto is an economic term used to describe neighborhoods where more than 40% of the residents are poor. Like I said go read the DICTIONARY.

Ahhh... all done... Remote control: Power off.

The fact that you don't know the sociological definition (nor the history) of the term 'ghetto' doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It simply means your education wasn't as thorough as you were led to believe it was. Whadda you say we expand your mind a little?. This one's on me;

"Ghetto"; (Italian, after Ghetto, island near Venice where Jews were made to live in the 16th century).

- "Etymology: The word "ghetto" has been used in numerous contexts and carried various meanings in its history, yet the first use of the word is somewhat unclear. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term is of uncertain etymology but is probably Italian in origin and was perhaps used for the first time in Venice, circa 1516, to describe a neighborhood on the site of the city’s foundry.
The first recorded written use of the word occurred in 1611 in Coryat’s Crudities, in which he describes "the place where the whole fraternity of the lews (sic) dwelleth together, which is called the Ghetto." After this initial use, the word appears infrequently in written form until the late 19th century, when the social landscape of city becomes the subject of many authors and scholars.

Semantics: Early in its history, the word "ghetto" denoted a walled-off and gated section in a city to which Jews were restricted. The word was chiefly used in Italy, especially in port cities like Venice in which large populations of Jews—many of whom were traders and money lenders—lived. Because they were viewed as cultural minorities due to their non-Christian beliefs in a Renaissance Christian environment, Jews were placed under strict regulations throughout many European cities. They were forced to live together in the ghetto to prevent their roaming about at night (Calimani 1). In addition to migration laws, sumptuary laws forced Jews to wear a star-shaped yellow badge and a yellow beret, identifying them as outsiders and making them open to taunts and various other social cruelties (Calimani 11).
Despite the social separation it promoted, the ghetto, for many Jews, did not represent a deterioration in the status, but rather provided a "middle ground between unconditional acceptance and expulsion" (Bonfil 70-71). Indeed, much of the Jewish population found the ghetto a suitable place to establish their own cultural rules and beliefs".

"The term "ghetto" fell into popular use again in Europe in the mid-1930s following the Nazi rise to power and the enactment of their race doctrine. The Nazis established over 300 Jewish ghettos in Poland, the Soviet Union, the Baltic States, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Hungary between 1939 and 1945"

"Ghetto" was a term mostly used and associated with Europe until Word War II, when the term entered American culture. It quickly acquired a negative connotation, describing an overpopulated, poor section of a city, usually inhabited by African Americans, Chicanos, or other co-cultures as a result of economic or social pressures. Soon after the mainstream adoption of this meaning, the term also came to signify any mode of sub-standard living or working as the result of stereotype or biased treatment. For example, prior to the women’s movement, women often found themselves in "job ghettos."
New Page 2

- 2 : a quarter of a city in which members of a minority group live especially because of social, legal, or economic pressure (Merriam-Webster)

- "The fact that ghettos have historically been the endemic and often accute material misery does not mean that a ghetto has to be poor, nor that it has to be uniformly deprived"
http://sociology.berkeley.edu/facult...USPREMISES.pdf


As you may surmise from all the above the term ghetto has evolved over time to include connotations not originally intended by the use of the term, which originally refered specifically to an isolated, segregated Jewish community. The term was again revived to describe the forced segregation of Jews during the expansion of Nazism and only afterwards was it eventually imported into America where it acquired it's current interpretation as pertaining only to areas populated by poor ethnic minorities or Afro-Americans.

All these interpretations of the term however are simply expansions of the original usage, whose underlying definition is and always has been a minority population that lives segregated and isolated -for whatever reasons- from the mainstream populace.

[Fullertonian]

Just because I don't know it exists doesn't mean it doesn't exist... Yeah, like I haven't heard that argument before. But just because I don't know that there is a smelly, red ass baboon in my closet does not mean that it IS there. HISTORY and my education lead me to reasonably believe that there is no smelly, red ass baboon in my closet just as your thinly veiled "intelligent" comments lead me to believe that they are just plain WRONG. Looking at the "evidence" you provided only proves me right.

To substantiate your "classic sociological definition" of "urban ghetto" you cite an article which appears in the section of "Events and Debates" of the International Journal of Urban and Regional Research which touts itself as a forum for groundbreaking and cutting edge research. Am I the only one seeing the contradiction here? Maybe you should have found another article explaining your "classic" definition. Good luck.

You also manage to entirely misinterpret the author's point. The argument set forth in the article does NOT define ghetto, as you say, as "expansions of the original usage, whose underlying definition is and always has been a minority population that lives segregated and isolated -for whatever reasons- from the mainstream populace." In addition, it does NOT use the term "urban ghetto" specifically nor "ghetto" in this context to entirely disassociate race from poverty.

Rather, the author is pointing out that debate concerning ghettos in America at the time did not properly identify the relationship between race and poverty in ghettos. Just as you are now.

Wacquandt's underlying premise is that inhabitants of ghettos are POOR or SUBJUGATED regardless of race. His three assertions are that ghettos have institutional roots which better explain their historical context, ghettos are organized along different principles in response to a unique set of structural and strategic constraints (ghetto inhabitants are poor and not upwardly socially mobile), and finally that the exoticizing of the ghetto is "an instrument of indictment" and inherently negative which speaks to your rants about non-English signs.

So how does Wacquandt apply to your vapid comments regarding modern uses of the word ghetto? 1) You can't separate the negative connotations from the definition of ghetto as you did. 2) Just because a group of people live by a set of principles does not separate them from the mainstream. Like I said Korean Americans value education and Fullerton touts itself rightly so as "The Education City." 3) Conceptions of the "ghetto" have deep roots in the exotic which serve to "impugn the civic standing of" those associated with ghetto dwellers. He says that sociologists should analyze ghettos so as not to fabricate a "new Orientalism" which your comments are doing.

So like I said. Whites in Newport Beach. Persians in Beverly Hills. Koreans in Fullerton. They're not poor. These places are not historically poor. No one forced them to live there nor do they choose to separate themselves from the mainstream. They are leading the mainstream through their collective achievements. They may not be your idea of "American" whatever the hell that meant but they are nonetheless.

Expand your mind... Read. Read carefully. I really want to insert an expletive here pointing at your wannabe smart ass comments, however, I will refrain and end with a quote from all time philosopher Mr. T, "I pity the fool."

Originally Posted by Disgusted

The fact that you don't know the sociological definition (nor the history) of the term 'ghetto' doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It simply means your education wasn't as thorough as you were led to believe it was. Whadda you say we expand your mind a little?. This one's on me;

"Ghetto"; (Italian, after Ghetto, island near Venice where Jews were made to live in the 16th century).

- "Etymology: The word "ghetto" has been used in numerous contexts and carried various meanings in its history, yet the first use of the word is somewhat unclear. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term is of uncertain etymology but is probably Italian in origin and was perhaps used for the first time in Venice, circa 1516, to describe a neighborhood on the site of the city’s foundry.
The first recorded written use of the word occurred in 1611 in Coryat’s Crudities, in which he describes "the place where the whole fraternity of the lews (sic) dwelleth together, which is called the Ghetto." After this initial use, the word appears infrequently in written form until the late 19th century, when the social landscape of city becomes the subject of many authors and scholars.

Semantics: Early in its history, the word "ghetto" denoted a walled-off and gated section in a city to which Jews were restricted. The word was chiefly used in Italy, especially in port cities like Venice in which large populations of Jews—many of whom were traders and money lenders—lived. Because they were viewed as cultural minorities due to their non-Christian beliefs in a Renaissance Christian environment, Jews were placed under strict regulations throughout many European cities. They were forced to live together in the ghetto to prevent their roaming about at night (Calimani 1). In addition to migration laws, sumptuary laws forced Jews to wear a star-shaped yellow badge and a yellow beret, identifying them as outsiders and making them open to taunts and various other social cruelties (Calimani 11).
Despite the social separation it promoted, the ghetto, for many Jews, did not represent a deterioration in the status, but rather provided a "middle ground between unconditional acceptance and expulsion" (Bonfil 70-71). Indeed, much of the Jewish population found the ghetto a suitable place to establish their own cultural rules and beliefs".

"The term "ghetto" fell into popular use again in Europe in the mid-1930s following the Nazi rise to power and the enactment of their race doctrine. The Nazis established over 300 Jewish ghettos in Poland, the Soviet Union, the Baltic States, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Hungary between 1939 and 1945"

"Ghetto" was a term mostly used and associated with Europe until Word War II, when the term entered American culture. It quickly acquired a negative connotation, describing an overpopulated, poor section of a city, usually inhabited by African Americans, Chicanos, or other co-cultures as a result of economic or social pressures. Soon after the mainstream adoption of this meaning, the term also came to signify any mode of sub-standard living or working as the result of stereotype or biased treatment. For example, prior to the women’s movement, women often found themselves in "job ghettos."
New Page 2

- 2 : a quarter of a city in which members of a minority group live especially because of social, legal, or economic pressure (Merriam-Webster)

- "The fact that ghettos have historically been the endemic and often accute material misery does not mean that a ghetto has to be poor, nor that it has to be uniformly deprived"
http://sociology.berkeley.edu/facult...USPREMISES.pdf


As you may surmise from all the above the term ghetto has evolved over time to include connotations not originally intended by the use of the term, which originally refered specifically to an isolated, segregated Jewish community. The term was again revived to describe the forced segregation of Jews during the expansion of Nazism and only afterwards was it eventually imported into America where it acquired it's current interpretation as pertaining only to areas populated by poor ethnic minorities or Afro-Americans.

All these interpretations of the term however are simply expansions of the original usage, whose underlying definition is and always has been a minority population that lives segregated and isolated -for whatever reasons- from the mainstream populace.

[Disgusted]

Originally Posted by Fullertonian

Just because I don't know it exists doesn't mean it doesn't exist... Yeah, like I haven't heard that argument before. But just because I don't know that there is a smelly, red ass baboon in my closet does not mean that it IS there. HISTORY and my education lead me to reasonably believe that there is no smelly, red ass baboon in my closet just as your thinly veiled "intelligent" comments lead me to believe that they are just plain WRONG. Looking at the "evidence" you provided only proves me right.

To substantiate your "classic sociological definition" of "urban ghetto" you cite an article which appears in the section of "Events and Debates" of the International Journal of Urban and Regional Research which touts itself as a forum for groundbreaking and cutting edge research. Am I the only one seeing the contradiction here? Maybe you should have found another article explaining your "classic" definition. Good luck.

You also manage to entirely misinterpret the author's point. The argument set forth in the article does NOT define ghetto, as you say, as "expansions of the original usage, whose underlying definition is and always has been a minority population that lives segregated and isolated -for whatever reasons- from the mainstream populace." In addition, it does NOT use the term "urban ghetto" specifically nor "ghetto" in this context to entirely disassociate race from poverty.

Rather, the author is pointing out that debate concerning ghettos in America at the time did not properly identify the relationship between race and poverty in ghettos. Just as you are now.

Wacquandt's underlying premise is that inhabitants of ghettos are POOR or SUBJUGATED regardless of race. His three assertions are that ghettos have institutional roots which better explain their historical context, ghettos are organized along different principles in response to a unique set of structural and strategic constraints (ghetto inhabitants are poor and not upwardly socially mobile), and finally that the exoticizing of the ghetto is "an instrument of indictment" and inherently negative which speaks to your rants about non-English signs.

So how does Wacquandt apply to your vapid comments regarding modern uses of the word ghetto? 1) You can't separate the negative connotations from the definition of ghetto as you did. 2) Just because a group of people live by a set of principles does not separate them from the mainstream. Like I said Korean Americans value education and Fullerton touts itself rightly so as "The Education City." 3) Conceptions of the "ghetto" have deep roots in the exotic which serve to "impugn the civic standing of" those associated with ghetto dwellers. He says that sociologists should analyze ghettos so as not to fabricate a "new Orientalism" which your comments are doing.

So like I said. Whites in Newport Beach. Persians in Beverly Hills. Koreans in Fullerton. They're not poor. These places are not historically poor. No one forced them to live there nor do they choose to separate themselves from the mainstream. They are leading the mainstream through their collective achievements. They may not be your idea of "American" whatever the hell that meant but they are nonetheless.

Expand your mind... Read. Read carefully. I really want to insert an expletive here pointing at your wannabe smart ass comments, however, I will refrain and end with a quote from all time philosopher Mr. T, "I pity the fool."

"A ghetto is an area where people from a specific racial or ethnic background live as a group in seclusion, voluntarily or involuntarily."
Ghetto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're not getting it. Just like in college, huh?. Loïc Wacquant is a French sociologist, specializing in urban sociology, poverty, and ethnography. As such, he uses the word ghetto as it pertains specifically to his field of study.
Your stuck on the association between the word "ghetto" and "poverty" and have taken them to mean one and the same thing. Let me help you break the forced psychological link you've established between the two words by showing you the concept of 'ghetto' used in a context which disassociates it from the idea of poverty and focuses instead on the more ample meaning of the word;

"The wealthy ghetto that is Winchester" The wealthy ghetto that is Winchester

“I think we’ve already created a wealthy ghetto in Boulder. With every regressive tax measure that we approve, we go more in that direction."
Cover Story

"Prices there mean that this will be a wealthy ghetto.."
http://www.govanlc.com/govanconf.pdf

"..but that Canadians cannot expect to live in a privileged wealthy ghetto in the midst of such planetary dislocation"
Unity in Diversity: Proceedings of ... - Google Book Search

[SIZE=3]"The Golden Ghetto: The Psychology of Affluence"[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] Amazon.com: The Golden Ghetto: The Psychology of Affluence: Books: Jessie H. O'Neill[/SIZE]

"The traditional stereotypes of ghettos as dangerous places does not necessarily apply to the gay ghetto"
Gay village - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The wealthy ghetto of St. James's is separated from the rest of SW1 by Green and St. James's Parks"
http://www.findaproperty.com/areagui...44&areaid=0167

If I were you, I'd stick to the topic of smelly, red-assed baboons. You seem to be much more knowledgeable on that topic.