Islands in the City: West Indian Migration to New York [Paperback]

I was very excited to read this book because I was told that it was the most comprehensive study to date on West Indian immigrants and their children in New York; I was misinformed.

The primary problem with this so called study is that it reinforces a negative division btw African Americans and West Indians in New York. It asserts, quite aggressively, that West Indians attempt to separate from African Americans solely because they want to distance themselves from the negative stereotypes of African Americans in the eyes of European Americans. She also claims that 2nd generation West Indian identification is more middle class than lower class. WHAT? It also asserts that second generation West Indian identification is futile unless white society recognizes it.

First of all, as a West Indian born in New York and raised in a West Indian community the vast majority of similar people, regardless of class, see themselves the same. The West Indian children I meet who see themselves as African American are ones who only have one parent who is West Indian, a reality she did not touch at all. THere are loads of such mixed children in New York and they are a major factor.

Next, this ridiculous notion that West Indian pride is a reaction to African AMerican negative stereotyping is simply wrong. Why cant West Indians be prideful simply because they are acknowledging their ancestral heritage? Greeks and Italians and white Latinos also heavily populate New York and show similar ethnic pride and it has nothing to do with distancing from white Americans because of negativity--if anything its the other way around. Ethnic pride is just big in New York, not necessarily for the sake of opposition, but because New York allows such ethnic celebration much more than other US cities.

Furthermore, she ignores negative African American responses to West Indians and how that influences what ever existent segregation there is between the two in New York. Claude McKay, a Harlem Renaissance writer originally from Jamaica, makes it clear in his novels that West Indians were existent in New York then and that African Americans termed them "Monkeys". There is a depiction of West Indians as somehow more related to Africans (since most West Indians are ethnically more West African in appearance and due to their foreign accent)and therefore "of the jungled primitive world". I experienced this first hand. Though now dancehall has made West Indian origin more popular it was not so before the mid 90s.

Also, there is a West Indian value of education that SOME African Americans do not have and this separation, such as my parents forcing me to speak academic english versus AfriAmer dialect or even patois slang, made it harder to connect with AfriAmericans as a teenager.

Also African American communities in New York have a greater degree of young single mothers and unemployed young men than the typical two parent homes of West Indians which makes the communities very different in their needs and thus reinforces less need for interaction.

It was also not recognized in this book that West Indian identity was not dependent of White recognition because as she noted, most West Indians in New York socialize among themselves or other people of color. She uses Londons west indian population as an example of how they are less concerned with ethnic identification than in America and how this is evidence of their need to distance themselves from AfriAmericans--thats false. I can say from first hand experience that West Indians in London are also proud however London is far less celebratory of ethnic multiculturalism than New York which discourages West Indian identity and that many of them are in great interaction with white London and thus lose their culture that way. Despite all of this Brixton is as West Indian prideful as Brooklyn! West Indian identity in New York is existent simply because it IS a different culture not because it needs to reaffirm this for white identity.

This book is bad. She neglected some major points.
I am married to a West Indian New Yorker.

One of the major factors that causes distinctions between West Indians and AfricAmericans in New York is rural versus urban. Many African Americans in New York have been there for decades since the Great Migration and have developed typical urban culture. West Indians, most of whom came in the 70s onward are from rural or small town cultures, with the exception of your Kingston rudeboy. Thus the small town values versus the big city badness is also a major difference for West Indian immigrants and African AMericans in New York.

My spouse has said that
"One of the greatest difficulties for me, which tied into the value of education, was the identification of the African American, not by whites who I think West Indians are less concerned about than Foner thinks, as "the N word". This is not a word used as casually in West Indian culture. African Americans, generally, use this word like it is running out of time! For me, I just couldnt stand hanging around someone who was constantly referring to me and themselves as such. The myth that it is a brotherly term, I couldnt buy. Too many times had I heard it used negatively by African Americans saying "Nig*** aint sh**", or "you cant trust a nig**" to buy that excuse! I know many West Indians who for this reason only find it difficult to be around SOME African Americans and not anything else."

Another thing is skin tone and female attraction. For many West Indians, a dark skin girl is attractive, and for those who like light skin, Caramel color is often considered light enough. However, many African American males in New York prefer them very very light or Latina. This causes more West Indian women to reaffirm their relationship with West Indian men.

Another foolish point made was that Whites are more accepting to West Indians than African Americans because of relating to an immigrant experience. Thats bull. Most Americans out of New York have no exposure to West Indians. Also most whites, with the exception of Italians and Jews, are generations removed from ideas of immigration. Immigration for americans is a problem with mexicans and the American desire for a Great Wall to be built in Texas. The truth is that IF their is any more positive response to West Indians it is because prior to the 1960s, where the vast majority of whites had arrived by then, most whites were a part of an oppressive system that made every effort to oppress African Americans of whom a lot are still alive today. They feel less guilt when interacting with West Indians and Africans who were oppressed by other whites and so they dont feel the same role was played. Even the Irish and Italian, who may have had issues with protestant America, played a key role as police brutality enforcers or whatever else against blacks. They were a key figure in the riots against blacks during the civil war, wanting not to fight for nig**** or compete for the same jobs. This is the source of their animosity not a lack of an immigrant identity relationship as the author foolishly suggests is the ingredient that makes them prefer West Indians.

Last but not least is the rasta legacy. Though many West Indians are not necessarily rastafari, they relate to this cultural movement and see it as a binder of the West Indian people, particularly Jamaicans. This has a lot to do with the West Indian identity (take a trip down Nostrand Ave and eastern PKWY where this author has probably never been) and you can see that there is a living culture, that does not exist for the sake of reaction, that continues in New York for the immigrants and their children.