What The Notorious BIG Can Tell Us About Race and Immigration
By Guest Contributor Jeremy R. Levine, originally published at Social Science Lite
In Black Identities, Harvard sociologist Mary Waters analyzes the racial and ethnic identities of first and second generation West Indian immigrants in New York City. At its core, Black Identities is a study of paradox. Waters eloquently states, “[For West Indians], America is a contradictory place…a land of greater opportunities than their homelands but simultaneously a land of racial stigma and discrimination. Immigrants readily buy into an image of American affluence, but are grounded in American racial and economic realities. One respondent noted despair that America is a “white world” in which “white people have all the money,” but in the same breath rejoiced in the fact that America is “a place where everyone has opportunity.” This is the inherent contradiction of the “American dream:” First generation West Indian immigrants must reconcile their lofty expectations of achievement with the myth of American social mobility as they grapple with structural and interpersonal racism in their day-to-day lives.
Second generation West Indian immigrants are also directly confronted with uniquely American race relations, resulting in contradictory immigrant identities. On the one hand, some immigrants embrace their Caribbean ancestry and construct social boundaries separating themselves from black Americans. On the other hand, many young, second generation West Indians (a plurality of her sample) buy into the uniquely American racial caste system and self-identify as black, abandoning other “ethnic options.” There wouldn’t be anything wrong with indentifying as “black,” if of course a slew of disadvantages and prejudices didn’t follow as a result. When race collides and interacts with social structure and culture, West Indian immigrant identity precariously wavers between ethnic loyalty and American assimilation. Paradoxically, the choice to remain loyal to their West Indian heritage affords these immigrants more social mobility than direct incorporation into American culture, as buying into American stereotypes often means downward mobility.
Sound familiar? Oddly reminiscent of a certain Brooklyn born rap legend? Indeed, The Notorious BIG represents an interesting case study—and exemplar—of Waters’ extensive empirical data. Biggie was born to a hardworking, loving Jamaican immigrant mother. While his father was largely absent from his life, Biggie’s mother held steady employment as a pre-school teacher and by all accounts was an involved parent. She enrolled her son in a private middle school in Brooklyn where he thrived academically. This scholastic success, of course, came to an end when Biggie began selling drugs at age 12. A (pun intended) notorious crack dealer, he eventually dropped out of high school, only to reach temporary stardom but ultimately suffer an untimely death.
A scene near the beginning of the recent biopic Notorious, in which Biggie’s character exhibits admiration and lust for the life of a street hustler, is telling. Waters’ research suggests that Biggie’s identity as a second generation West Indian immigrant could have, presumably, led him to continue his studies and perhaps achieve upward mobility—distancing himself both from the general stereotypes of American blacks and the actual hustlers in his immediate surroundings. But, when confronted with the reality of American race relations—in this example, Bed-Stuy/Clinton Hill in the early ‘90s—Biggie could have just as easily been propelled to identify more with the black Americans selling drugs on the corner by his house. Like many poor second generation West Indian immigrants, Biggie lacked local models of success, a disparity caused by urban economic marginalization and resulting in a push to identify with a certain type of black American.
Big had an ethnic “choice,” sure; claim his Jamaican roots, or step in line with America’s vision of race. But it was a structured choice provided under economic duress and within the context of a uniquely American racial order. The problem is, both paths of ethnic identity formation have problematic results for blacks as a whole. By distancing themselves from the “black underclass,” many West Indians reaffirm long-standing stereotypes of blacks as lazy, violent, and generally inferior. In this model, immigrants achieve individual mobility at the expense of group advancement. In other words, individual immigrants can use this boundary work to catapult themselves toward success, but it negates the possibility for the advancement of blacks as a group. West Indians face American stereotypes and norms of black insolence, and their rejection—and even acceptance—of this identity solidifies white preconceptions. This puts West Indian immigrants in a uniquely difficult position—a Catch-22 in which either path of identity formation reinforces a firm black-white color line.
Biggie’s life story dovetails nicely with Waters’ analysis, complicating traditional studies of race, immigration, and assimilation in the United States. Of course, Biggie’s life obviously doesn’t reflect the experiences of all second generation West Indian immigrants. Still, Waters’ analysis in Black Identities does help explain, in part, why “G-E-D, wasn’t B-I-G.”
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Ron wrote:
Do we need another anti-black american essay disguising itsself as a scholarly work. Really.
I suppose that Biggie could not have chosen to become a “posse” member of a jamaican drug crew. Because we all know only black americans sell drugs in Brooklyn.
The false dichotomy set up by this article is the very thing I thought we were trying to eliminate.
The attempt at trying to set up a model ethnic group really only works when the homeland people come from are doing well. Otherwise, it is a device to cause more ethnic strife.
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 12:16 pm ¶
Gem wrote:
Wow, we literally JUST covered this book on Monday in my Population class.
One of my research areas of interest is black immigration, assimilation, and identity.
I do wonder if West Indians increased in population size here in the US if they will be officially designated an ethnicity similar to Hispanic. There seems to be grounds for this to be made possible.
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 12:36 pm ¶
Elton wrote:
Believe me, I understand the problem. The model minority myth fails to mention the way fierce competition between Asian Americans in the classroom as well as in the marketplace can have the effect of holding us all down. And coming from a working class immigrant background in Pine Bluff, AR (which I found out this week is one of America’s ten poorest cities with the highest crime rate of ALL cities), having gone on to do incredible things academically, yet still unable to lift my parents out of their situation, I live this catch-22.
The question is, what is the solution?
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 12:37 pm ¶
Azizi wrote:
There wouldn’t be anything wrong with indentifying as “black,” if of course a slew of disadvantages and prejudices didn’t follow as a result.
What?! If West Indian immigrants didn’t self-identify as black, they wouldn’t be confronted with the disadvantages and prejudices that [other] Black people experience? I doubt that very much, mainly because racial identity in the USA is so closely tied to physical clues. Americans assume another person’s racial identity by the way that person’s looks. Of course, they could be wrong (or have an incomplete understanding of that person’s racial/ethnic identity. But I don’t think that’s the point of this article.
Is it just me, but is the author or the reviewer (I’m not sure which one wrote what) saying that African Americans are more likely to be drug dealers than Caribbean people in the USA who self-identify as West Indian? I got the sense that either the author or the reviewer or both were saying that if Notorious Big had continued to identify as a Jamaican (who we all know work harder than those lazy no good shiftless, drug selling African Americans- SNARK) than he’d still be alive today.
What simplistic, stereotypical sh*t. As a 3rd generation West Indian (Barbados & Trinidad) on my maternal side, I am insulted by this article.
Not to mention that there are various ethnicities among African Americans (or “blacks”) as the article refers to us. We aren’t just some homogeneous mass.
It seems to me that one of the purposes of this article is to continue to use the divide & conquer strategy on People of the African Diaspora in the United States. Hopefully, we won’t fall for such dangerous crap.
That said, I’m open to being convinced that I totally misread this summary.
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 12:57 pm ¶
Jamerican Muslimah wrote:
“Some immigrants embrace their Caribbean ancestry and construct social boundaries separating themselves from black Americans. On the other hand, many young, second generation West Indians (a plurality of her sample) buy into the uniquely American racial caste system and self-identify as black, abandoning other “ethnic options.” ”
And then some of us come to a place where we realize we can be both. (Of course this means I constantly have to explain, correct and challenge others). I went through a phase where I only identified as West Indian and then only as African-American or “Black.” (Sometimes embodying the stereotypes). I was driving myself crazy.
Eventually I realized that I have two wonderful cultures and there is no harm in celebrating both. Hence the reason I’m a proud “Jamerican. “
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 1:39 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:
@Azizi: I read the article more as exposing the divide and conquer strategy… not playing into it.
In other words, if you accept the pre-existing stereotypes, there’s really no way out the for individual/community. The “drug-dealing” stereotype or the “hard-working Jamaican” stereotype are both dangerous traps…
The unstated assumption is that it’s better to reject the stereotypes to begin with. At least, that’s what I got out of this article.
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 1:41 pm ¶
Phil Deeze wrote:
We’ve seen this before in the movies. “Sugar Hill” most notably. Wesley Snipes’ drug crew is battling with the Italian mafiosi and tries to cut a deal with some African drug cartel. They say they won’t do business with “cotton-pickers.”
Three races of thieves and thugs. Italians. African-American. African. But, of course, the Italians are the “highest level” of thief. And, of course, the Africans and Italians are cocksure they are better than the African-American dope dealers.
Or, how about “American Gangster?” The Italian mafia don tries to lecture Frank Lucas about “order” and how the drug wars could never have happened if Italians were running it. Child, please.
Or Sonny Corleone’s character in “The Godfather” trilogy. He wants to get into the drug trade, which is poo-poohed by Don Corleone who wants to leave that for the darker-hued races and let them kill their future generations and stay in the ghetto.
And on and on and on.
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 1:48 pm ¶
Roy wrote:
All POC immigrant groups face this disheartening realization of the racial caste system even if they follow the so called White rules and get a better education and are more qualified for a job…
Biggie embodies the true spirit of freedom that this nation perceives itself to be founded on but is not considered pioneering by the majority because he does not fit the accepted mold.
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 1:57 pm ¶
Mrs._Lioness wrote:
@Azizi – maybe I also totally misread this piece, but I also walked away from it with a bad taste in my mouth. Like you I am open to further discussion and explanation.
It just seems at face value far too easy to say that “West Indian identity will save you from those horrible pitfalls that African Americans face”. For one far too monolithic of a statement, and also laying way too much blame at the doorstep of “African American” pitfalls.
Also I really don’t get how the following example of Biggie is SO uniquely an immigrant experience:
“Biggie was born to a hardworking, loving Jamaican immigrant mother. While his father was largely absent from his life, Biggie’s mother held steady employment as a pre-school teacher and by all accounts was an involved parent. She enrolled her son in a private middle school in Brooklyn where he thrived academically.”
It seems to ignore the fact that this is the same background many African Americans come from. So why, in the case of Biggie is it purely a choice of identity. Why isn’t it framed as a larger issue of wider mainstream societies economic/social pressures and roadblocks that ALL young Black men face, resulting in and some of them may taking a path like Biggie’s?
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 2:05 pm ¶
Seattle Slim wrote:
I think what the author was trying to convey wasn’t some distinction that was imagined pitting one against the other. I think she’s coming from a realistic point.
I say this because it’s happened to me as a West Indian. I’ve had people put me in the “model minority” class the minute they found out I wasn’t “American.”
We have our differences, and that’s fine. I don’t want to be lumped in with anyone, because we are not some monolithic, homogenous group. So what if I don’t want to identify myself as simply “black” or African-American? I’m not some color. My family and my heritage mean a lot to me, and they always will.
I can’t be something I am not, so I cannot identify as African American. If I do that, it really, in my opinion, negates a part of me that I am not willing to hide or put away.
White Americans can be German American, Italian American, Irish American, Jewish American, et al. Why can’t WE as black people distinguish ourselves?
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 2:38 pm ¶
prvlgd cdn wrote:
I can’t speak to it directly with any authority, but I remember a Canadian filmmaker/playwright had a piece, I think in the New Yorker in the ’90s (I know, super helpful–maybe someone with a better memory saw it?), about how, to a certain extent, the bad North American black/good Carribean immigrant stereotype was/is reversed in Toronto, where the stereotype is much more that poverty and crime is endemic with Jamaican immigrants, but black people descended from those who came to Canada from the US–as escaped slaves, United Empire Loyalists, immigrants avoiding Jim Crow persecution etc. were y’know, salt of the earth.
I think his point was that propagating a good black people/bad black people meme, however arbitrarily assigned, gives bigots an excuse to hate at least some black people and still not consider themselves racists
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 2:43 pm ¶
Seattle Slim wrote:
“The problem is, both paths of ethnic identity formation have problematic results for blacks as a whole. By distancing themselves from the “black underclass,” many West Indians reaffirm long-standing stereotypes of blacks as lazy, violent, and generally inferior.”
What exactly is the black underclass? If by black underclass the author is referring to elements that are harmful to their communities and other black people, then what’s wrong with that? There are plent of BW (of AA descent) who are urging women to jump on an “ark” or “divest” or simply run and keep far away from this “black underclass.”
If by underclass, the author means those who are less fortunate, but are fundamentally good people (not drug dealers, pimps, thugs, etc.) then that is different. I will say that the only solution to the ills plaguing black folks in America is volunteering and mentoring. Not everyone can and should do this, but a hell of a lot more of us can and should, and I’ve found that blacks, AA or WI, don’t do enough of it.
I don’t care about stereotypes anymore. So if it reinforces stereotypes, that’s no one’s fault but the person stereotyping, in the first place. That’s their problem.
“In this model, immigrants achieve individual mobility at the expense of group advancement. In other words, individual immigrants can use this boundary work to catapult themselves toward success, but it negates the possibility for the advancement of blacks as a group. West Indians face American stereotypes and norms of black insolence, and their rejection—and even acceptance—of this identity solidifies white preconceptions.”
But whose really to blame? These people should not have “preconceptions” in the first place, and even when confronted with people who go against those preconceptions, they still hold on to them. There is nothing I want to do to babysit these people, or coddle them, into accepting me without preconceived notions.
I do believe in mobility as a group, but I am of the belief that mobility as a group can only be achieved if we instill individual mobility in each and everyone of us. When we have that innate need and drive to push further, it affects the entire community, driving those who detrimental and putting them at the fringe, regardless of heritage or identification.
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 3:00 pm ¶
Seattle Slim wrote:
*typo I mean “who’s”
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 3:01 pm ¶
Solar Bear wrote:
Judging ourselves through YT peooples eyes is our biggest obstacle.
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 3:15 pm ¶
prvlgd cdn wrote:
Tangential question: Is “West Indian” currently a widely acceptable term?
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 3:25 pm ¶
Alegna wrote:
@ Seattle Slim
It’s funny but I found your earlier post problematic; although I can sort of understand where you are coming from.
But your last post I agree with. We have to stop worrying about racist people to the extent that it stops or stiffles us from excelling. Mentoring is so key to helping young people succeed which is the point.
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 4:26 pm ¶
timarasa wrote:
@ prvlgd cdn: continuing the tangent–yes wondering same thing. i always used “caribbean” b/c thought it was more inclusive of the non-anglophone cultures found in the region as well. my family background is haitian, and i hear “caribbean” and “antillean” (of course spelled differently in french creole); our english-speaking brethren use “west indian” more. however, it’d be interesting to discuss black immigrant experiences to the US where english is NOT the first language, and how second generations navigate societal assumptions of their black identities from both sides of the fence. believe me, i’ve had my share of bullsh-t from both teams and everywhere in between…
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 4:57 pm ¶
shermari wrote:
As a Black Jamaican, I have a host of issues with this article. First of all the argument that I as someone of African descent could choose between identifying as black or some other ethnic identity, So if one identifies as Jamaican, Dominican, Trinidadian, etc. that means that you are not black? Those are identifiers of nationality (and culture) and if you’re familiar with the demographics of the Caribbean, don’t have anything to do with race. I can identify as black and Jamaican, just as my sister in-law can identify as Indian(Southeast Asian) and Jamaican.
Secondly, as a child, as soon as I opened my mouth, people knew that I wasn’t American. After I lost my accent, when they heard my mother, father or grandmother speak, they knew we weren’t American. As a young person discussing favorite foods with my friends, I should have lied and said that I ate and enjoyed chitlins, macaroni and cheese (not the Kraft kind that my family ate), collard greens, banana pudding, etc. that is universally eaten by African Americans (at least where I live). In those instances there was no chance to deny or affirm your African American-ness. It was a known fact that you weren’t and I couldn’t choose to be.
I honestly didn’t know that as a Black person not born in America, I had some advantages that American born Blacks didn’t have. It sure didn’t feel that way those times when I was called n***er by some Whites in my neighborhood. I didn’t feel like I was exempt as a target of the racist flyers that were posted in my college dormitory or when anti-affirmative action letters were written in the school newspaper. Dang, if I had only known…
Finally, why does the onus get put on the minority in the case of a model minority stereotype to end it? Shouldn’t it be the responsibility of the those that buy into the stereotype to examine it themselves. A reasonable person should be able to see that those stereotypes don’t hold true. If they ever bothered to talk to some of the hard working, well educated West Indians, Africans, Chinese, etc., they would find out that they all have relatives, friends, or acquaintances who are the exact opposite. What’s even sadder is that POC’s buy into the stereotypes and use them against each other. This kind of article only serves to further drive a wedge between minority groups.
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 5:24 pm ¶
blip wrote:
Most 1st generation Caribbeans who immigrated in the late 60s/early 70s were married with children or single with no children. Never single mothers. To use Biggie Smalls as a portrait of a 2nd generation Caribbean is insulting. Look around you. You could have used better examples to illustrate your point.
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 5:24 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Interesting responses to this one.
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 5:42 pm ¶
Asada wrote:
@ latoya Peterson
Isnt this a repeat from another biggie article!? I could have sworn I saw this already…..
Mod Note – Not to my knowledge. If you can you think of it, let me know. – LDP
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 5:47 pm ¶
Joy wrote:
“a certain type of black American.” – Really? I thought drug dealers and dropouts could be ANY kind of American, not just black ones.
@Seattle Slim – Don’t identify as African American. I don’t either! I think what would be more accurate is to say most white Americans identify simply as *American.* Americans who are black should have the same right – to just be American. Then if you don’t want to identify as American, that’s fine. Identify as whatever you choose.
(No, I don’t hate my African roots. Of course all black people have African roots, just like all white people have European roots. But, I don’t think I’ve ever heard the term European American. Probably because they no longer identify as from Europe.)
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 6:39 pm ¶
Seattle Slim wrote:
prvlgd,
I think it depends. We tend to refer to ourselves as West Indian in my family’s circle, but it’s just one of the many identifiers we can use like Afro-Castellano/a (Afro-Castillian), Afro-Antillano (Afro-Antillean), Afro-Latino/a. It just depends. It still seems to be one of the widely acceptable terms, but there are so many, and it depends on preference and region.
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 6:45 pm ¶
Seattle Slim wrote:
@Shermari,
Well said. I agree with you.
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 6:46 pm ¶
Seattle Slim wrote:
@Alegna,
I think I was misreading the post a bit. I noticed when I reread it, I was misconstruing it a bit.
I do stand by my assertion that I am not just “black.” I will always be black but like Shermari noties, I am black/West-Indian. That’s not a negation of my race, it’s an affirmation of my background, heritage and ancestors, beliefs, culture, my very being.
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 6:51 pm ¶
AS wrote:
@Phil Deeze: Get your Godfather references right, son. Don Corleone did not want to get into drugs because it would alienate his judicial and political friends. At the meeting of the Five Families and the families of other cities throughout the country following Sonny’s death, they agreed to permit the traffic in narcotics against Don Corleone’s advice and wishes. It was Don Zaluchi of Detroit who said,”I don’t want it near schools! I don’t want it sold to children! That’s an infamia. In my city, we would keep the traffic in the dark people, the coloreds. They’re animals anyway, so let them lose their souls.”
Sonny did, however, say that “the niggers up in Harlem are having a good time with our policy banks…driving around in them big Cadillacs and paying 50% on a bet.”
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 7:04 pm ¶
9jah wrote:
I agree with Seattle Slim that acknowledging a different ethnic identity apart from “just” black/African American does sometimes elicit different treatment by whites and noticeably non-black foreigners. Some people assume it gives them license to spew vitriol about the “black Americans”. Which gladly allows me to jump into my own lessons on how stupid stereotypes are.
For me, I don’t see these identities as mutually exclusive as far as race per se is concerned. Now, it would make sense for me to draw distinctions where my particular experience being raised in a Nigerian family matters, say regarding certain food I ate growing up.
I guess one part of the article that sticks with me is the point that biggies mom was an involved, working mother and did put him in private school. I don’t think is typical for most kids who end up in a street lifestyle so it does beg the question why? I do think that there is a false notion of what it means to be black and male that does not exist in other places, which needs to be deconstructed. But middle class blacks face the same pressures to conform to this as everyone else. I see the issue being less about an “ethnic” choice as much as a “class” choice regarding what are acceptable attitudes/behaviors.
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 7:21 pm ¶
BSK wrote:
I agree with those taking issue with this article. This seems like more victim blaming, basically saying, “It’s black people’s fault they can’t get out of their own way.” Couldn’t, theoretically, any black person choose to identify with the positive stereotypes of another ethnicity, or even race for that matter and set a course of success? Or is this right only reserved to CA’s? This also relegates all aspects of black culture to the negative stereotypes we see thrown at us on TV and in the media all the time. To be black is to be a drug dealer? To be Jamaican is to be hard working?
I’m also not sure I enjoy the premise that CA’s have more social mobility. While it’s possible that, as members of a potentially tight-knit immigrant community, they will have certain locally-based advantages, to most people, he/she is still just a black man/woman. The social ills and institutional racism that plagues PoC’s in this country don’t care where your parents came from. And they aren’t any more likely to care simply because you acknowledge where they are from.
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 7:46 pm ¶
April wrote:
Plenty of others have already chimed in with their criticisms of this post, but I have to say that these were the lines that galled me the most:
“Waters’ research suggests that Biggie’s identity as a second generation West Indian immigrant could have, presumably, led him to continue his studies and perhaps achieve upward mobility—distancing himself both from the general stereotypes of American blacks and the actual hustlers in his immediate surroundings.”
As if this would not have been possible if he had been “just black” (as some folks refer to descendants of black American slaves)? Not to mention that having been born in Brooklyn, Christopher Wallace wasn’t an immigrant, first- or second-generation.
Maybe the culprit here is just poor writing, but this post perpetuates a bunch of stereotypes.
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 7:54 pm ¶
ieishah wrote:
this article is… interesting, but kind of out of focus. by saying big ‘could have’ taken a certain path that would have led to a certain division between black people of different ethnicities or whatever is to posit a scenario that, for the most part doesn’t exist. for this to work, the writer needs to look at big’s mom.
my dad came to america from guyana just in time to go to the vietnam war. one time MLK was on the radio. my dad had to ask who it was. his comrades were in stitches. when my mom tells me the story of how i got my name (it was her contribution to the civil rights movement) or i understand perfectly how the entrepreneurship of west indian immigrants in certain counties in queens make it so that black families out-earn white families (as per that ny times article a few years ago), it’s impossible for me to see this as a new discovery.
my generation, has learned to ‘pass’ in one way or another, for african american. it’s cute to focus on BIG because he’s BIG, but having lived it, i think the argument (and it’s not an argument, really. it’s life for some of us) would have more weight if we focused it on voletta.
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 8:45 pm ¶
Anon wrote:
I find this inappropriate:
“A (pun intended) notorious crack dealer”
How can you find drug selling a topic fit for humour?
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 8:45 pm ¶
Marcus Kwame wrote:
I’m a Jamaican immigrant and throughout my life I’ve been troubled by the way we (people of African descent from the US and the West Indies respectively) often stereotype one another. My mother, one of the hardest working people I know, has been openly chastised at times by Black American co-workers, saying things like, “damn immigrants coming in and taking all our jobs,” or “I’m not letting any foreigner tell me what to do?”
Equally troubling, were my fathers complaints about about Black Americans, and repetition of stereotypes of their laziness and unwillingness to improve their situation. I’ve debated and argued with him about these generalizations time and time again over the years.
Both of these stereotypes, Jamaican and American, puzzled me. On one hand, it seemed hypocritical of Black Americans to hate Black foreigners—turning magically patriotic towards a country that had no love for them. On the other hand, the West Indian criticism of the “Lazy Black American” echoed, white-supremacist theories and stereotypes. To me, Black Americans and West Indians were all brothers and sisters, and I couldn’t get with the oversimplified caricatures being presented.
Which brings me to Mary Waters analysis (as represented in this post). The representations of both immigrants and American born black folk presented in the post are extremely limited. There is some level of truth in the ideas presented. I can relate to the dilemma of which identity to chose, American or immigrant. But then again which immigrant group in the U.S. DOESN’T face identity dilemmas at some point? In all fairness I haven’t read Black Identities, and only have this review of the book to go on. Maybe the book offers a more complex look at the subject. I certainly hope this is the case, because the picture painted here is incomplete and echoes some of the same generalizations that I mentioned above.
Immigrants are people like anyone else. We are diverse, Sure, there are cultural trends, but we are not all the same. Stereotypes and generalizations, even positive ones (hardworking, etc.), are not a good thing.
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 9:43 pm ¶
Yonnie3k wrote:
Interesting article, if for no other reason than to spur discussion. Unlike many of the commenters, I didn’t think that the study or the reviewer were buying into stereotypes about African-Americans. Instead, I think it was just acknowledging that these stereotypes exist and the implication of identifying with one group or another.
Like one commenter said, people are usually assigned stereotypes based on how they look, in which case we’re all stereotyped initially. However, being from parents (aunts and uncles) who came of age in Boston in the 60’s and 70’s, I can tell you that there are a whole other set of stereotypes assigned to West Indians (by African-Americans).
I wonder how (or if) this study would have been different if conducted on 1st and 2nd generation African immigrants.
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 10:39 pm ¶
Olivia wrote:
I’m of Jamaican descent and try to refrain from using the term ‘West Indian’, ‘West Indies’ etc. The whole history with Columbus and all of that…
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 10:44 pm ¶
socgrad wrote:
This post pushed some buttons for me too. It’s in the same vein as the upward mobility vs. segmentation theory of immigrant incorporation that Portes has been pushing for the last 10+ years, and that theory bugs the hell out of me. The theory goes that immigrant and 2nd generation children(primarily Latino and Caribbean people as Portes applies the theory) have two possible avenues to assimilation into America, either upward mobility or downward into the “underclass”.
What bothers me so much about this theory is that it ignores the fact that these immigrant and 2nd generation children are most likely growing up in poor, segregated neighborhoods. Assimilating into native born black or Latino culture for them is assimilating into the poorest segment of black and Latino cultures. They assimilate downward because the culture / community they are assimilating into is a poor community. Portes (and apparently this post) doesn’t fully acknowledge that fact. Instead they take assimilation into poor black and Latino cultures as assimilating into black and Latino cultures generally.
Which brings me to the second fact this theory ignores: the black and Latino native born middle classes (Hello?). In this theory of either upward mobility by distancing oneself from native born black and Latino communities or downward mobility by assimilating into those communities, there is no mention at all of the possibility of upward mobility by assimilating into the black and Latino middle classes.
Why is that? Possibly because the presence of stable, native born black and Latino middle classes would undermine the very narrative of the good immigrant vs. bad American that is needed for the distancing route to upward mobility? Or maybe, because most of the immigrant and 2nd generation children grow up in poor, segregated communities, they have little to no contact with native born black and Latino middle class communities (much like their native born neighbors) and thus have no role models for gaining upward mobility while maintaining an identity as black (or latino)?
Also, for shemarri, the Caribbean vs. black distinction has meaning in New York and other parts of the NorthEast because there are large Caribbean populations here. In other parts of the U.S., like the MidWest outside of Chicago and the South the distinction carries much less weight or is simply irrelevant to the majority (white) population. As prvlgd pointed out, Caribbean vs. black can mean different things depending on where you live.
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 11:02 pm ¶
Wildman wrote:
While this might seem like a hot topic today a man named Alain Locke edited a book back in the early 1900’s (The New Negro) that touched on the subject of animosity between African Americans and immigrants from the Caribbean. Immigrants were seen as competition for a limited number of jobs available to minorities.
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 11:20 pm ¶
Jeremy wrote:
I have not been following these comments as they came in, but since I’m here now, I will offer a few general points of clarification.
First, the entire first chapter of Waters’ book is devoted to the varied definitions of the “West Indian” label, as well as a history of West Indian immigration to the US. The term “West Indian” was decided on since that was the term most used by her interviewees, though there was certainly debate (such as, “I’m Jamaican, not West Indian” etc).
The premise of the book was to dismantle the false notion that West Indian immigrants are somehow a model minority and immune to the American racial caste system. While 1st generation immigrants are outperforming American blacks on economic measures, their children aren’t. The purpose of the book, in part, was to ask them and figure out why.
The term “2nd generation immigrant” refers to children of 1st generation immigrants born in this country. “1.5 generation immigrant” refers to children born to immigrants in their host country, who immigrated to the US at an early age. I thought Big was born in the US, but I could be wrong.
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 11:21 pm ¶
Jeremy wrote:
Additionally, the term “underclass” was used by Waters’ 1st generation interviewees to describe poor African Americans living in concentrated poverty, largely in America’s cities. They expressed outward disdain for the underclass in her interviews. Obviously, this is not everyone’s feeling, but it’s what the folks in NYC told her.
The second generation immigrants in her sample discussed feeling ridiculed for their association with their West Indian background. This is what prompted the finding re: self-identifying with their Caribbean ancestry vs. what the outside (white) world views them as: black. Many folks outwardly rejected being labeled “black” or African American, because, like many of their parents, they believed that to be black in America’s cities is to be (fill in X stereotype here). By rejecting the stereotyped identity of blacks in this country, they paradoxically reinforce that stereotype was based in “truth.”
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 11:28 pm ¶
Jeremy wrote:
The crux of the argument, to which I agree, is that West Indian immigrants, by virtue of their dark skin color, go through a complicated process of identity and assimilation given 1) where immigration is centralized (cities) and 2) the unique American racial caste system that desperately wants to label them into false stereotypes–as underachieving blacks or model minorities.
It’s a messed up position to be put in, with constrained choices of identity (as opposed to white ethnic identity, where I, for example, could interchangeably call myself “Jewish”, “White”, or “irish” without any worry), due to a messed up structure of racial stratification.
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 11:33 pm ¶
Jeremy wrote:
And one last general point: Black Identities is a 300 page book, with detailed chapters and complex arguments. This post is, I think, like 600 words or so. I don’t think it’s that out of bounds to cut me just a little bit of slack for oversimplifying five years worth of research and hundreds of interviews and observations.
Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 11:37 pm ¶
Jeremy wrote:
I’m sorry for the continued commenting, but I want to address the following comment:
“Is it just me, but is the author or the reviewer (I’m not sure which one wrote what) saying that African Americans are more likely to be drug dealers than Caribbean people in the USA who self-identify as West Indian? I got the sense that either the author or the reviewer or both were saying that if Notorious Big had continued to identify as a Jamaican (who we all know work harder than those lazy no good shiftless, drug selling African Americans- SNARK) than he’d still be alive today.”
Yeah I would have hoped it was obvious that neither myself, nor the author, actually would suggest that. In fact, she would not have brought Big into the discussion at all–but I thought it would be interesting to think about race and immigration using Big’s life story.
Waters interviewed a number of employers that employed her West Indian interviewees in NYC, and they all noted, using as many stereotypes as they could, how West Indians aren’t as lazy as native-born blacks, aren’t as unreliable, etc etc, so they had a preference for West Indians, based on their stereotypes. Moreover, the service industry from which they–and most immigrants–were employed relied heavily on referral hiring strategies, directly benefiting the West Indians that were able to signal to the employer that they were West Indian, and not native African-American.
The story of discrimination and the benefit of identifying as West Indian is a labor market story: There were, and are, direct labor market benefits in certain economic sectors to identify as “West Indian.” Does this mean that saying “Hey I’m West Indian” means you won’t ever do bad things? Of course not; the outcome of interest in this book is aggregate level employment and labor market benefits. Does saying “Hey, i’m black” mean you are inherently bad or will do bad things? Of course not, but given levels of discrimination–for all classes of native born African Americans–it means diminished labor market returns. Are there some Jamaican gangs in West Palm Beach, FL, for example? Sure. But employers, on the whole, have an overwhelming disdain for blacks, and place a high premium on West Indians, almost all of which is based unfairly on stereotypes. Understanding the mobility of immigrant groups helps illustrate this general trend of racial stratification in this country.
The problem Big and others face isn’t one of identity choice; it was of employer-based discrimination and labor market outcomes. This wasn’t exactly clear in the post, and for that I apologize for offending anyone. The fundamental story of the book is not about pitting these two groups against each other, but rather to show how deeply entrenched employer-based discrimination and racial stratification is.
Often, when I discussed certain stereotypes and identity formation processes/assimilation, I’m talking in the context of American belief systems and stereotypes. So when I write that being labeled “black” induces a slew of disadvantages, I mean that based on employer discrimination and general discrimination from (largely white) arbiters of institutional power in this country. This was not clear in the piece.
Looking at 2nd generation immigrants, of which Biggie was one, is interesting because 1) it challenges the misplaced, misused notion of the”model minority” and 2) it shows how deeply embedded racial classification still is in this country, that second generation West Indians (unlike many other immigrant groups) are pushed in certain directions within our prexisting racial caste system.
Posted 22 Oct 2009 at 12:07 am ¶
ashlynn wrote:
My problem with this article is that it presents information without actually lending any further explanation or solution. I went to school with a large West Indian community, and I often faced that same mess, that Caribbean people who immigrate to America are so focused and hardworking, unlike those regular black folks. Because there is no crime in Jamaica or any other West Indian country. Right. Even with my close friends of West Indian descent, we would have fall out arguments about whether they were black- which they are IMO, just not black Americans. But they would be only too quick to distance themselves from any sort of association to being black- because there is no concept of being Black without being African American. It’s entirely too frustrating to be painted in such a corner- black but not mixed, black but with no distinctive nationality or foreign heritage, just worthless, useless, stereotypical bottomfeeding black. Sometimes I often feel that much of the world- or at least America- would just love to round us not-so-special black people up and frigging send us out to sea. Harsh, I know, but I’m only dishing it out as it is given to me.
Posted 22 Oct 2009 at 1:32 am ¶
Jeremy wrote:
@ashlynn
I think this point is critical: “Because there is no crime in Jamaica or any other West Indian country. ”
In the original book summary I wrote, which didn’t include the couple paragraphs on Biggie, I framed it as a study of paradox. I made it a point to note that even these islands themselves represent a paradox of sorts, on the one hand this idealized vacation destination, and on the other hand some of the the areas, globally, with some of the most extreme poverty (Kingston, etc).
Posted 22 Oct 2009 at 7:17 am ¶
atlasien wrote:
I think the post is being misread as arguing a moral position, when it’s simply presenting more of a morally-neutral, clinical, sociological position.
Also, it’s not fair to expect the writer to provide absolutely and total full context. There’s a 600-page book he refers to that does that.
On the other hand, Jeremy, this is a good learning opportunity for you about writing for a large, diverse audience on a blog. And the lesson is that adding just one sentence of moral perspective — the one near the end that starts with “obviously” — isn’t going to cut it. For best effect, you’d have been better off with a paragraph, not a sentence, explaining the moral dimensions of the issue and relating your own experiences, or those of a friend or a colleague, to the issue. And also a few sentences at the beginning describing the moral dimensions, and the approach you’re then going to take in the post.
Posted 22 Oct 2009 at 7:47 am ¶
Jeremy wrote:
Point taken, atlasien. The post was originally written on my personal blog, which is more often than not read by folks that have already read this book. Had I tailored a piece specific to the Racialicious audience, I would have offered much much much more background to set it all up. Latoya had emailed me over the weekend asking to x-post it, to which I agreed (this is a great blog). I think most folks can agree that you change your content based on your audience, adding more background or details here, skipping some of the minutia there, etc.
Not that that makes up entirely for the awkward application of a sociological theory to a rapper, but I just think that needed to be cleared up.
Posted 22 Oct 2009 at 9:08 am ¶
Azizi wrote:
Jeremy, I appreciate your willingness to post additional information and explanations about your article. And I certainly don’t expect your essay to cover everything in the entire Black Identities book.
Yet it seems to me that your article gives the impression that you believe that a Black person from the Caribbean can side step the effects of institutional racism in the USA by identifying himself or herself as “West Indian”.
Also, you wrote “Paradoxically, the choice to remain loyal to their West Indian heritage affords these immigrants more social mobility than direct incorporation into American culture, as buying into American stereotypes often means downward mobility.”
I gather that by “direct incorporation into Amerian culture” you meant “identifying themselves as “black” . Yet “American culture” is supposed to be a mosaic of heritages, isn’t it? So why would people who remain loyal to their West Indian culture be less American? Are Irish Americans who celebrate St.Patrick’s Day less American? Are German Americans who celebrate their culture not less American for doing so?
Another problem that I have with your article is your definition of the racial referent “black”. In one of your posts you wrote:
…”employers, on the whole, have an overwhelming disdain for blacks, and place a high premium on West Indians, almost all of which is based unfairly on stereotypes.”
Discounting whether that statement holds true throughout the entire USA, I’m wondering if what you were trying to convey would have been clearer if you had used the referent “African American” instead of “black” *. I believe that “Black” includes a much larger population of people than does “African American” as it refers to most people who have any African ancestry and it refers to all people from the African Diaspora. Thus according to that social definition (not to mention the USA “one drop of black blood” definition of who is Black), most people from the Caribbean are Black.
Furthermore, I’m wondering if any of the antipathy about being identified as Black that the author of this book found among those people she interviewed was because (as I understand it) people from the Caribbean have a different definition for who is “Black” . I’ve read that in the Caribbean “Black” only refers to someone who has no other ancestry but “Black African”. This is still problematic, but isn’t the same thing as West Indians people not wanting to identify themselves as “African Americans” because they buy into negative stereotypes about us. (I say “us” because I have both African American and Caribbean ancestry. But because I was born in the USA and have only lived here, I’ve only identified myself as “African American” (though admittedly, that formal group referent has changed a number of times in my lifetime).
* I capitalize the word “Black” when using it as a racial referent, but I recognize that many people don’t .
Posted 22 Oct 2009 at 9:15 am ¶
Azizi wrote:
Correction, this sentence should read this way:
Are German Americans who celebrate their culture less American for doing so?
Posted 22 Oct 2009 at 9:16 am ¶
Danielle wrote:
I completely agree with Ron – this article is scholarly racism and I’m disapointed that it appears on this website.
“Waters’ research suggests that Biggie’s identity as a second generation West Indian immigrant could have, presumably, led him to continue his studies and perhaps achieve upward mobility—distancing himself both from the general stereotypes of American blacks and the actual hustlers in his immediate surroundings. But, when confronted with the reality of American race relations—in this example, Bed-Stuy/Clinton Hill in the early ‘90s—Biggie could have just as easily been propelled to identify more with the black Americans selling drugs on the corner by his house”
There are many choices other than the two that Levine presents here as there are other kinds of people living in the Bed-Stuy community. Choosing to identify as black does not mean one will end up on a corner selling drugs. The possibility of upward mobility while identifying as black exists as well as the possibility of selling drugs and identifying as West Indian.
This “urban” study obviously comes from an author who does not come from an urban setting and has chosen the study of poor blacks (in both meanings of the word) as an interesting case study in crime and failure.
Accepting a black identity does not signify accepting “insolence”. Levine does not seem to be aware of the act of embracing black identity nor does he think much of the identity itself. This work contributes nothing to the study of black identity and as a black scholar of the same field, I find it insulting.
Posted 22 Oct 2009 at 9:22 am ¶
Phil Deeze wrote:
@AS,
Fact remains that the sporty thieves of La Cosa Nostra have always been and will always be romaticized when compared to organized crime in the black community. Part of that romanticism can also be traced to the mafia’s ties to Hollywood and Las Vegas.
Check out a book called “The Outfit” by Gus Ruffo. Very interesting stuff in there about the Chicago mob particularly the parts about how the Chicago mob got “into” the movie business by sending “their man” out to the movie studios.
Posted 22 Oct 2009 at 9:50 am ¶
Mike wrote:
“In this model, immigrants achieve individual mobility at the expense of group advancement. In other words, individual immigrants can use this boundary work to catapult themselves toward success, but it negates the possibility for the advancement of blacks as a group. West Indians face American stereotypes and norms of black insolence, and their rejection—and even acceptance—of this identity solidifies white preconceptions.”
This is a misreading of Waters. West Indians (and this also applies to African immigrants) may not actually identify as part of a larger “black” group. What they work towards is west indian or african advancement, perhaps to the detriment of american black advancement. This does not further sharpen the color divide. It may sharpen negative stereotypes of american blacks, but many whites conceive of west indians and african immigrants as different from (and more positively than) american blacks. This complicates the color boundary but creates a perhaps less phenotypical, but equally ethnic boundary.
Posted 22 Oct 2009 at 10:20 am ¶
ladyscales wrote:
Are we ever going to recognize this okey-doke?
Oh these blacks are unruly, let’s drop them off on this island. Oh these are hard workers, let’s keep them working in the fields. Oh these blacks are timid, let’s put them in the house.
Oh thank goodness, we have some “other” blacks that will work hard, let’s hire them and spread the word. Let’s tell them that they’re better than these blacks.
I remember meeting a young woman from Trinidad and we were talking about a book of affirmations upon which she stated that she didn’t need this because she grew up around white people so her self-esteem was very good.
When my aunt (Jamaican) married my uncle (American) her father stopped talking to her because he was too dark.
My father-in-law (American) feels that all blacks from other countries are up to no good and therefore has a tough time dealing with people.
These bones are killing me.
Posted 22 Oct 2009 at 10:43 am ¶
Kyan Maru wrote:
@44 Azizi: “Furthermore, I’m wondering if any of the antipathy about being identified as Black that the author of this book found among those people she interviewed was because (as I understand it) people from the Caribbean have a different definition for who is “Black” . I’ve read that in the Caribbean “Black” only refers to someone who has no other ancestry but “Black African”. This is still problematic, but isn’t the same thing as West Indians people not wanting to identify themselves as “African Americans” because they buy into negative stereotypes about us.”
I’m only speaking for myself as a person of West Indian descent, but the last time I was in America, the one thing that really struck me was how many people (of all races) took for granted was that the term “African American” denotes more than just a race, it’s actually a culture.
People would talk about Black music (like jazz/rap/r’nb) or Black soul food when from my persepctive, what they actuallly meant was African American music, African African food.
I don’t think it’s generally meant it in a good way or a bad way, but I think it’s just a matter of specificity.
Whenever I talked about what I thought of as home cooked ( “Black”) food (roti/curry/stirfry) people would give this “???” becausethey though of those as Asian foods.
It was a bizarre experience because within the West Indian/Caribbean context, a person could be Black, but then in the American context, they’re culturally not “Black” because what it means to be Black is different in so many ways.
Posted 22 Oct 2009 at 11:53 am ¶
Justme wrote:
This is tribalism at its best. I was born in JA and came here very young (6 to be exact) and I identify as both Black American and West indian – my experiences has been both. I have never had the problem of someone identifying me as anything other than black. As many has said before this article only serves to divide us.
Posted 22 Oct 2009 at 2:32 pm ¶
Jeremy wrote:
@Azizi:
I want to respond to this:
“Yet it seems to me that your article gives the impression that you believe that a Black person from the Caribbean can side step the effects of institutional racism in the USA by identifying himself or herself as “West Indian”.
Also, you wrote “Paradoxically, the choice to remain loyal to their West Indian heritage affords these immigrants more social mobility than direct incorporation into American culture, as buying into American stereotypes often means downward mobility.” ”
Quite the contrary; a West Indian can not, in the eyes of potential employers/teachers/etc sidestep the fact that this is a country that WANTS, desperately, to label them “black” and call it a day. And I think the overall trajectory of 2nd generation illustrates how this categorization happens, and how many 2nd generation immigrants get lumped into a category of stereotypes.
What was ultimately cut from this post was a brief discussion comparing different immigrant groups patterns and effect of assimilation. The paradox, or problem, is that for other immigrant groups, say, Koreans for example, a long history of distancing themselves from other poor peoples in the US, often their African American neighbors, has helped them achieve upward mobility. Upward mobility–assimilating into the American economy and getting returns–for centuries of immigrant groups (italians, poles, irish, etc) has occurred at the expense of Native born African Americans. The irish are one of the classic examples. The general pattern is: adopt American stereotypes, become whitened, achieve upward mobility. For a second generation West Indian, accepting stereotypes and buying into America’s caste system won’t produce favorable outcomes, regardless if pockets of middle class African American communities exist sporadically across this country.
The paradox, relative to other immigrant groups, is they don’t even have the ability to whiten themselves (we can debate the whitening of Cubans or some Asian groups, but just think about European immigrants). The best labor market outcome for a West Indian immigrant, at the aggregate level, is to maintain an ethnic identity. Why is this? Because this country has a messed up, rigid system of racial classification.
This is key: There is nothing inherently bad, dysfunctional, perverse, or whatever about some vaguely defined “black identity.” Nothing. Nothing about being black, African American, or some degree of dark skin automatically equates with low class, poor, or culturally deficient. Nothing. The paradox is how that classification–being an immigrant’s child and self-identifying as “black”–produces worse labor market outcomes than maintaining the immigrant identity. The same isn’t exactly true for other immigrant groups.
People here seem to be suggesting that I infer that “black” culture (whatever that is) is *bad,* and if these groups just avoided the *bad* “black” culture, it would be all gravy. By contrast, this work instead points to a messed up racial classification system of stereotypes defined by members of society in power.
That’s what needs to change, the horribly inaccurate stereotypes that persist and are forced on newcomers into this country.
Posted 22 Oct 2009 at 2:54 pm ¶
Jeremy wrote:
@ Mike
“This does not further sharpen the color divide. It may sharpen negative stereotypes of american blacks, but many whites conceive of west indians and african immigrants as different from (and more positively than) american blacks. This complicates the color boundary but creates a perhaps less phenotypical, but equally ethnic boundary.”
I don’t think I offer a misreading of Waters, in this respect, but that instead you and I differ on our conclusions based on the book.
The “color line” I reference is the native black-white color line. And I think reinforcing stereotypes (do I need to say, specifically, incorrect stereotypes?) of American blacks reinforces the “color line” in this respect–i.e. in the colloquial version of what we mean by “color line”. which has less to do with phenotype per se, and more to do with differences between African Americans and American whites.
Posted 22 Oct 2009 at 2:58 pm ¶
Lola wrote:
@ Jeremy
thank you for the clarifications
the achievement gap between 1st and 2nd generation immigrants shows how powerful negative stereotypes are
1st generation still has their accent so employers will assume they are hard working immigrants
2nd generation now longer has accents to differentiate them from other black Americans so employers assume they are lazy
Posted 22 Oct 2009 at 3:14 pm ¶
Jeremy wrote:
@ Danielle
“There are many choices other than the two that Levine presents here as there are other kinds of people living in the Bed-Stuy community. Choosing to identify as black does not mean one will end up on a corner selling drugs. The possibility of upward mobility while identifying as black exists as well as the possibility of selling drugs and identifying as West Indian.”
I think part of the problem is that those “choices” aren’t really choices at all, which is what I write at the beginning of one of the last paragraphs. It’s a “choice” insofar as there are options, but the options have two preconditions: 1) widely held American stereotypes of native born African Americans; and 2) the spatial proximity of immigrant groups to poor groups of color in inner cities, relative to the distance between these groups and other social role models. Mind you, the immigrant groups under discussion are not affluent when they come to this country. Positive black and/or brown and/or whatever social role models exist; we all can agree. But a unique feature of concentrated poverty, and the areas in which many poor immigrants reside, is these role models are not present. They just aren’t, at least not to the same extent that they exist in other neighborhoods outside of Bed Stuy. Like, maybe we can name a bunch of dudes that are putting out a positive message, but the means of social control and the norm of that behavior just isn’t the same. And let me be clear: this is of no fault of the residents of these neighborhoods or cities in the slightest, but rather a long series of racially and class restricted housing patterns, changes in the economy that disproportionately affected people that had been discriminated against etc etc…
“This “urban” study obviously comes from an author who does not come from an urban setting and has chosen the study of poor blacks (in both meanings of the word) as an interesting case study in crime and failure.”
For the record, both myself and the author of the book are from “urban settings,” though 1) I should reiterate that this is a long ass book, and I cherry-picked certain sub-arguments to write about, so don’t judge this book til you read it; and 2) You can keep that personal-level mess to yourself. The book isn’t about crime, or violence, or any of that. I stretched some of the arguments to apply to Big, and it was more about his labor market opportunities (things out of his control) that pushed him in certain directions, and, in fact, not at all about blaming him for a “choice” that was most certainly not made in a vacuum.
“Accepting a black identity does not signify accepting “insolence”. Levine does not seem to be aware of the act of embracing black identity nor does he think much of the identity itself. This work contributes nothing to the study of black identity and as a black scholar of the same field, I find it insulting.”
Ok, I admit this wasn’t clear, but yeah, I have no disagreement with this. As I wrote in a previous comment, there is nothing “bad” about “black culture” (used in quotes because I don’t really think there’s is a single, unified “black” culture, but rather multiple cultures that manifest in multiple ways in different settings). I think the point is that it’s a strongly held stereotype by the majority of Americans, and many 1st gen. West Indians expressed it in the book, as did some of the commenters here. what I’m talking about is a completely untrue stereotype that is pressed upon immigrant groups as they enter this country. Embracing a “black identity” of course doesn’t mean “do bad things” or “do dysfunctional things.” We both know that’s ridiculous. It’s probably one of the more egregiously racist things anyone can argue nowadays. But it’s a larger stereotype imposed upon these groups, beyond their control–because this is still a racist country based on racist ideas of native born African Americans. Identity formation for any immigrant group operates within this context of a racist nation with a problematic racial classification system.
Read the book–I did not even come close to articulating it fully. And if you still have problems with me, I’m more than happy to continue this over email.
Posted 22 Oct 2009 at 3:21 pm ¶
Jeremy wrote:
@Lola
“the achievement gap between 1st and 2nd generation immigrants shows how powerful negative stereotypes are
1st generation still has their accent so employers will assume they are hard working immigrants
2nd generation now longer has accents to differentiate them from other black Americans so employers assume they are lazy”
I completely agree.
Posted 22 Oct 2009 at 3:22 pm ¶
Seattle Slim wrote:
I disagree slightly about the accent thing. If the rule in the household is to hold on to that accent (I’ve held on to mine and know of many others who have) then it can still be a distinction.
It just depends on the household. Growing up, my mother was not fond of “yanking” and she certainly did not want much appropriation of American culture in the house. She was very strict in maintaining our identity as West-Indians/Caribbeans and so we were not allowed to appropriate or embrace too much. I honestly did not want to because although I was born here, I was not raised here, and I certainly was not welcome, by WAs or AAs often. We were often viewed as “stupid” immigrants, with AAs pouring on the most vitriol, for reasons I still cannot understand.
I have some idea. Several years ago, TIME magazine did a piece on Chicanos versus newly arrived Mexicans/immigrants, and most of the Chicanos interviewed adopted an “anti-immigrant” stance.
I think this is the same situation happening with AAs and CAs.
I don’t think that CAs who view AAs as “undesirable” have adopted a racist view of AAs solely. Some do. But I think there are many more factors. I’d love to get into those in a future discussion.
Posted 22 Oct 2009 at 4:22 pm ¶
Ron wrote:
@ Jeremy
I think you make a great point about if people make these structured choices they may have individual advancement at the expense of group advancement.
Based upon your excerpts from the book, I just get a little frustrated with lack of new ground being covered. I mean this labor market advantage only works to serve the interests of those seeking to tribalize people of African descent even more. (An analysis of this problem and a solution would have been a breath of fresh air).
In most places where people of African descent exist these same labor market forces play themselves out in one way or the other.
The bigger picture seems to be that why do people of African descent allow this to happen to them.
Jeremy: “But it’s a larger stereotype imposed upon these groups, beyond their control–because this is still a racist country based on racist ideas of native born African Americans.”
More importantly, why is this beyond our control? Are people of African descent powerless? No. AA and West Indians for the most part do not buy this argument. The shared oppression and proximity to each other eliminates collective stereotyping. If there is collective stereotyping it is benign at worst.
Morever, New York is highly unrepresentative of AA in labor markets.
A better case study would have been in the South in the black belt where institutional black power resides and new West Indian immigrants are residing alongside a broader cross-section of black america.
Posted 22 Oct 2009 at 4:42 pm ¶
SAL wrote:
Noone here familiar with the Jamaican drug dealer/gun runner stereotype that has nothing to do with African American influences? Many would argue that Biggie was more influenced by the murder and mayhem in Kingston, JA than Brooklyn, NY. I guess the authors haven’t been to Bedstuy or Miami. Also, the poverty and caste system in Jamaica are not to believed. It’s quite clear who is black, who is mixed, and who is almost white and how that plays out in that country. This whole article is disingenous on so many levels. The sad truth is that some Caribbeans want to leave the racism/colorism they experienced back home so they can come to the states and “start over” as pseudo-white-folks. Easy to blame the no-good American negroes for screwing up their daydreams rather than institutionalized racism. I have met many Caribbeans who understand racism in their home countries and in the U.S. And they don’t blame African Americans for it. This is a simple-minded, hateful study.
Posted 22 Oct 2009 at 4:58 pm ¶
Dinie Pierre wrote:
I am a Hatien-American and I feel that this study is pretty accurate. It’s sad but most of the West Indians I know do try to distance themselves from AA when dealing with negative steryotypes. My father even does it sometimes complaining about the “black bums on the street” and I constantly say to him “Dad WE ARE BLACK!” he puts ‘other’ if the carribean choice for race isn’t there. Its a challenge because I shouldnt have to choose btween West Indian and AA yet i feel like an outsider of both cultures if i don’t choose one.
Posted 22 Oct 2009 at 7:55 pm ¶
curlyscales wrote:
@ Jeremy,
Thanks for the clarification. This is a definite sore point in the community and it will not go away unless we spill it.
But I believe that a moderator (objective, patient, you know, a saint) is needed.
Posted 23 Oct 2009 at 6:03 am ¶
Jeremy wrote:
@Ron
“why is this beyond our control? Are people of African descent powerless? No.”
I think this is a bit tricky. Would you rather me say that AAs and CAs are empowered and have a lot of agency to challenge these stereotypes? Because the, I’m going to get attacked for blaming the victim, because if they have the power to change these stereotypes, and don’t, the implication is that there’s some truth there (which i don’t think there is). The issue of stereotypes and agency is tough to parse out, and reading through these comments, I don’t think anyone can argue either way without getting attacked.
Also, I agree that NYC is a poor case study, in many labor market related respects. But it’s also a good laboratory to see how CA immigration is different than other not-black skinned immigrant assimilation processes.
@Sal
My co-blogger at my home blog is a 2nd Gen Caribbean American from Miami. He didn’t help me craft this essay, but Waters’ book is one of his favorites in our field. Please consult the actual book before labeling it a hateful study.
I will say, however, that the issue of animus directed at native born AA was not the entire sample. Many CA, as I’m sure you know/have lived, recognize and express a shared experienceswith American blacks. But many, in the study at least, expressed outright disdain. What’s important to recognize is that a finding that says, say, 70% of CA working in a food service industry in NYC distance themselves from native born AA, is just that: a finding. It doesn’t apply to everyone, but it represents a description of the social reality of that time and place. To call it “hateful” is odd, in this respect, since there’s no value judgment placed on any groups in this book, except to comment on the powerful nature of racial classification (i.e. white-created classification systems and stereotypes) that works to make assimilation different for CA than other immigrant groups.
@SeattleSlim
I definitely agree. Part of what’s going on is NOT racism from CA directed at AA (referred elsewhere in this thread as “tribalism”) but rather CA coming into a new country and facing American stereotypes head on. So what would anyone do in this situation? To be American, we’re often told, means to relinquish some parts of our ancestry (language, for example). But because racism is so rampant in this country, for CA to relinquish these things means they might (*might*) inadvertently face harsher discrimination in some labor markets. So yeah, I think you’re totally right to suggest that some CA may believe the stereotypes, but it’s certainly more complicated than that. The book gets into this well.
@Dinie
Thanks for your comments.
@curlyscales
I’m glad i was able to clarify some of the sloppily argued points in the essay better here in the comments. This is one of those essays that I didn’t exactly realize how ignorant I was to a situation (CA/AA conflict, or lackthereof), but still wrote about it. Things like “homophobia in the black community” are things I never write about because, well, I don’t fit either of those identities, thus have no real experience to base my writing on. I kinda got a little sloppy with that here, writing about a major issue I, unfortunately, was previously un-schooled on (beyond the book). Thanks for your comments.
Posted 23 Oct 2009 at 9:35 am ¶
Jeremy wrote:
@Ron: That comment should read: “Because the THING IS, I’m going to get attacked for blaming the victim, because if they have the power to change these stereotypes, and don’t, the implication is that there’s some truth there (which i don’t think there is).”
Posted 23 Oct 2009 at 9:36 am ¶
shermari wrote:
How does a stereotyped group change the stereotype about themselves? Also, how does one group, like CA, change the negative stereotypes about another group , like AA, especially when it comes to employers ? To me it seems that this is what the article and even some of the comments here are suggesting CA’s do.
As a CA, I’m feeling pretty defensive about this article and book. There are negative stereotypes held by CA’s about AA’s, but it also works the other way around. However, I feel it’s being presented very one sided here against CA’s and that won’t benefit either group.
On another note, I just saw a clip on Jack and Jill with a Afro-Latina from Panama and her AA boyfriend (I assume). He was saying something like AA didn’t have a choice in coming to the US. They were brought here and forced into slavery… I have gathered that a lot of AA think like this. They don’t understand that slaves were brought to the Caribbean BEFORE they came to the US. My maternal grandmother was raised by her grandfather was also the son of the slave master. The man in the clip seems to think that CA’s haven’t suffered like AA’s in terms of slavery and discrimination.
I wonder if this is part of the reason behind the animosity against Black immigrants. “They haven’t suffered like us (AA’s), but they come to our country and take our jobs and think they’re better than us.”
Posted 23 Oct 2009 at 11:22 am ¶
Jeremy wrote:
@shermari
“To me it seems that this is what the article and even some of the comments here are suggesting CA’s do. ”
I don’t, nor would I ever, suggest that in the slightest. Some others in the comments have said things to this effect, but I
Folks seem to be getting really outraged about this essay, assuming that I am blaming AA and CA for conflicts between the groups. Instead, I think the evidence speaks more to a messed up system in America in which Whites see dark skin and immediately classify them as “black” and tag on a bunch of negative, incorrect stereotypes to boot. The problem doesn’t rest on the shoulders of CAs or AAs, but rather on the entire US for incorrectly perpetuating a binary vision (black-white) of race and ethnicity.
What’s unwritten in my 600 word essay, but all over the book, is how many native born blacks express a tremendous amount of resentment toward CAs. The book isn’t one sided, but my poorly written summary was.
I think the main idea is that this animosity operates within the context of American race relations, and classification systems of race. It’s not that CAs and AAs are inherently at odds, but rather that our system of racial stratification in the US produces conditions for that animosity to manifest.
The “blame,” so to speak, rests on the shoulders of America, rather than blaming CAs or AAs or anything like that.
Posted 23 Oct 2009 at 2:57 pm ¶
Tikimite wrote:
It’s interesting that so many people are disagreeing or find this article so unfounded. I read it and agreed with most of the points. I’m not CA but African-American (actually from Africa) and I find that there is an unstated labor value in not being AA. The expectation is that African-Americans usually have well educated parents and a relatively more stable background. I know people who explain that they are African/of African descent as opposed to Black because of the negative stereotypes affixed to AAs.
I think it’s a problem that needs to be highlighted and addressed and I think the article hinted at a particularly insidious facet; if/when people gain from being CA instead of AA the cycle continues and the stereotype is upheld.
There needs to be more than the resentment and disdain leveled from each side (i include the conflict between African immigrants, CA and AA in here as well). What this study also suggests to me is that the system is well aware that blacks are not homogeneous and is very comfortable using divide and rule tactics to maintain order.
Posted 23 Oct 2009 at 3:49 pm ¶
Ron wrote:
We all are well aware of this divide and conquer tactic. You really have to be attuned to the use of this tactic. I think people assume that this tactic is institutional and therefore they do not keep their guard up against it when individuals use it.
Sometimes you have to be selfless in order confront these tactics. We should take as much pride in being anti-CA, AA, and African immigrant stereoptype as we are in being anti-racist.
I am AA and my wife is CA and we discuss these intra-racial issues.
We do have it in our power to not buy into or benefit from these stereotypes that serve no use but to maintain the status quo.
The sad part about these tactics is that they work best in majority African descent countries. This is nothing but another form of tribalism that leads to our destruction.
The Ibos were always considered good slaves and hard workers while the Guinea were considered dangerous and insolent.
Same tactics different names.
Posted 23 Oct 2009 at 5:23 pm ¶
Azizi wrote:
Jeremy,
I want to thank you for posting comments in response to those that have been made by bloggers here.
Lots of guest writers would not have done so. And in my opinion, that you responded to comments that we made-including those that were not favorable about your article- speaks well of you and speaks well of your intentions.
Posted 23 Oct 2009 at 7:39 pm ¶
SAL wrote:
It is impressive that you’re so committed to your study and feel comfortable with your “unbiased” findings, but I still feel that it is flawed (and trotting out your Caribbean colleague from Miami is a bit funky). It is not possible for anyone who lives in this society to be “unbiased” when it comes to race and class, given the huge elephant in the room. In order to make it in this country, one has to push those issues under the rug and denigrate those who haven’t been able to escape the chokehold of social class, poverty and race (one 300 years in the making). Also, you did not address the race, class, and color schisms that are a part of so many Caribbean lives in your comment to me. It must be a bitter pill to leave the islands to come to the promised land, only to discover that these schisms exist here, too. It totally makes sense that some Caribbeans would distance themselves from American blacks, who remind them of all that they left. I would still argue that Biggie’s influences are far more Caribbean than American. Perhaps your next study could address the differences between African American and Caribbean street culture? And there is a difference. There is a level of violence and retribution in Caribbean street culture that has its roots in Caribbean poverty and colonialism. Perhaps your next study?
Posted 24 Oct 2009 at 5:34 am ¶
Julie wrote:
As the first American citizen born to West Indian (WI) immigrants, I say this article is utter nonsense.
Embracing your WI heritage does not exclude you from being identified as BLACK. In this country (and most), if you look Black – you’re Black. That’s it.
Being WI does not mean you get treated differently than Black Americans. This is divisive misinformation.
Also, OF ALL PEOPLE you pick Notorious BIG?
Why did you not pick someone like COLIN POWELL?!
Posted 25 Oct 2009 at 9:39 pm ¶
Marco wrote:
Nice piece, Jeremy. For a variety of reasons, I think that most of the responses that have leveled criticisms against the author have misinterpreted the article.
Having said that, I found many of the responses very fascinating. As a second generation Haitian American growing up in a predominantly white community, I’ve always struggled with identity. While most of my white peers classified me as Black, many of my African-Americans peers thought differently. At the same time, my parents and aunts and uncles did not see me as a “real” Haitian, only “by blood.” Unsurprisingly, according to context I may identify as either “Haitian,” “Black,” or “American.”
Even as I study race, ethnicity, and identity in graduate school, negotiating my identity remains a tricky issue to this day.
Posted 25 Oct 2009 at 10:37 pm ¶
Lynn wrote:
It’s funny how people are viewed differently in different places. I’m Black ( Black Jamaican / White Welsh mix) and I live in the UK . British people of Jamaican descent are viewed the most negatively here out of all Black people. We’re negatively stereotyped in a similar way to African Americans.
Posted 26 Oct 2009 at 8:36 pm ¶
Ron wrote:
Malcolm X, Delaney Martin, Marcus Garvey, and Farrakhan are all of WI descent and these individuals have been influential regarding black identity worldwide. They are the total opposite of WI seeking to separate themselves from AA.
Most importantly, these gentlemen have a totally different perspective regarding the labor market.
Posted 26 Oct 2009 at 11:01 pm ¶
Prophetik Soul wrote:
I find this topic interesting.
When I was in my 20s and I traveled to Africa, I was amazed at the stereotypes that existed about AAs. Ive always known the stereotypes that we AAs believed about CAs.
Here is my question. Someone mentioned that AAs forget that the legacy of slavery extends to the Caribbean, Central and South America. I agree with that.
I am interested in how our (the African Diaspora in the western world) histories with enslavement intertwine but also where they diverge.
I know that in the U.S., the Africans brought were a minority and we still are. I understand that in Brazil and some other countries, they may be the majority. I also understand that in some countries, rebellions led to independence where in the U.S., it was supposedly due process that emancipated us.
I say all this to ask, how does all this affect our ideas and beliefs about one another and our histories?
Has anyone done any research on this?
Posted 27 Oct 2009 at 11:33 am ¶
West Indian wrote:
A note to the author, in case you were not aware: West Indian people also consist of races other than black.
Posted 28 Oct 2009 at 7:06 pm ¶