race and color jamaican migrants in london and new york city

8/13/2019 Race and Color Jamaican Migrants in London and New York City

1/21

Race and Color: Jamaican Migrants in London and New York CityAuthor(s): Nancy FonerSource: International Migration Review, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Winter, 1985), pp. 708-727Published by: The Center for Migration Studies of New York, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2546105.

Accessed: 02/11/2013 14:24

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Center for Migration Studies of New York, Inc.is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access toInternational Migration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.63.180.147 on Sat, 2 Nov 2013 14:24:17 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cmigrationshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2546105?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2546105?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cmigrations


2/21

Race and Color: lamaican Migrantsin London and New York City

Nancy FonerState University of New York, Purchase

This article explores the significance of race among Jamaicans in NewYork City and London. What it means to be a black Jamaican, it isargued, depends on the racial context of the receiving area. Althoughin the United States and Britain Jamaicans face racial prejudice anddiscrimination, there are advantages to living in New York. Being partof the larger black population cushions Jamaican migrants in NewYork from some of the sting of racial prejudice and provides them witheasier access to certain occupations and social institutions.

Since the end of World War II, several hundred thousand Jamaicans havemoved to Britain and the United States. In the 1950s and early 1960s,Jamaicans were, as poet Louise Bennett (1971) ironically puts it, colonizingEngland in reverse , and since the late 1960s they have flocked to the UnitedStates. Within each country, London and New York City have been the mainareas of settlement. About half of the Jamaican population in Britain and theUnited States live in the Greater London region and the New York metro?politan area.This article compares the significance of race among Jamaicans in Londonand New York. Drawing on research among first-generation migrants inboth cities,1 it is contended that being a black Jamaican must be understoodin terms of the racial context of the receiving area. Difficult as it is forJamaicans in both London and New York to adjust to being black in a whitesociety, it is more of a problem in London. Paradoxically, in New York,where segregation of blacks is more pronounced, being part of the large, andresidentially concentrated, local black population cushions Jamaican migrantsfrom some of the sting of racial prejudice and provides them with easieraccess to certain occupations and social institutions.

1My research in London in 1973 was funded by grants from the National Institute of MentalHealth and the City University of New York, Faculty ResearchAwardProgram. I wasassisted inthe interviewing by Peter Braham. The London research is fully reported in Foner (1978).TheNew Yorkstudy, carried out between FebruaryandJuly 1982,wasmade possible by a grant fromNew York University's New York Research Program in Inter-American Affairs. I am grateful tothe Director of the Program, Christopher Mitchell, for his help throughout the research periodand to Neva Wartell who served as a research assistant. For a fuller account of the New Yorkresearch, see,Foner (1983).708 IMR Volume xix, No. 4

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/21

Jamaican Migrants in London and New York City 709PA TTERNS OF MIGRA TIONJamaicans have long looked abroad for better job opportunities, higherwages, and improved life styles. Whether this search took them to Britain orthe United States in the post-World War II period was largely a matter ofimmigration policies in the two countries. Britain was the destination forthousands of Jamaicans in the 1950s and early 1960s partly because the 1952McCarran-Walter Act made it so difficult for Jamaicans to move to theUnited States. At the same time, the postwar years in Britain were a time ofeconomic expansion, providing indigenous workers with opportunities tomove into better-paying and higher-status jobs and creating openings on thelower rungs of the occupational ladder (Peach, 1968). While Britian endedJamaicans' right to enter freely in 1962, the United States opened its doors tomass immigration from the Island with the passage of the 1965 Immigrationand Nationality Act. Since then, enormous numbers of Jamaicans have head?ed for the United States, and this mass migration shows no signs of abating.

In the British case, the 1950s and 1960s migration stream from Jamaica wasthe first mass movement of its kind; before 1951, arrivals from the entireWest Indies apparently never exceeded 1,000 a year in Britain (Rose, et. al.,1969:66). Most Jamaicans who moved to Britain in the 1950s and early 1960swere skilled or semi-skilled by Jamaican standards and more skilled than theaverage Jamaican (Wright, 1968). Only a small minority, probably fewerthan 10 percent, were white-collar workers at home. Typically, the man inthe family came to Britain first, later followed by his wife (or common-lawwife or girlfriend) and children. Jamaican emigration to Britain was char?acterized from the start by a high percentage of women, but the proportion ofmen in the migration was higher than for women ? and it was especiallyhigh in the early years (Rose, et. al., 1969:76).

The Commonwealth Immigrants Act of 1962 changed the composition andvolume of the immigration. There was a marked shift from men to women aswell as from adults to children. Dependents of those already resident inBritain could still enter freely, but adults intending to work in Britain werenow subject to strict limitations. The drop in the number of Jamaicanscoming to Britain to settle after the 1962 Act was dramatic. From 1955 to justbefore the 1962 Act went into effect, 158,630 Jamaicans entered Britain(Deakin, 1970:50). Between July 1962 and December 1968, 32,700 Jamaicanswere admitted for settlement, and the numbers declined still further in the1970s. All told, by 1971, census figures available for West Indians2 showedthat 446,200 people of West Indian origin were living in Britain, of whom223,300 were born there (Lomas and Monck, 1977:12). A large percentage? over half ? of the West Indians were Jamaican.

2In this paper, the term West Indian refers only to those with origins in the English-speakingCaribbean, including Guyana.



4/21

710 International Migration Review

Jamaicans wishing to move to the United States have, throughout thiscentury, been subject to immigration restrictions. The 1965 legislation,which ushered in the recent mass migration of Jamaicans, affected not onlythe volume but also other trends that characterized the movement.

The 1965 law eliminated the small quota Jamaica had been subject to since1952, and Jamaican immigration snowballed as soon as it went into effect,going from 2,743 in 1966 to 10,483 in 1967. From then, the number ofJamaicans legally immigrating to the United States kept a steady pace,reaching nearly 20,000 in both 1978 and 1979. Legal immigration, of course,is only part of the story. Whereas in Britain, illegal immigration of Jamaicanssince 1962 is clearly insignificant, in the United States large numbers ofJamaicans have entered with temporary visitor's visas and stayed, often formany years, without the proper documents.Because so many Jamaicans are not legally registered, it is impossible tosay how many Jamaicans live in the United States. Nor are published figuresavailable on the large number of second-generation Jamaicans. The recentmigration to the United States is, after all, not the first large wave. Thousandsof Jamaicans came early in the century, before the restrictive 1924 immigrationact. Between 1911 and 1921 alone, net Jamaican emigration to the UnitedStates amounted to 30,000 (Roberts, 1979:139-40). Even in the 1950s and early1960s, there was a steady trickle from the Island. By 1980, according to censusreports, there were about 200,000 people born in Jamaica living in theUnited States, and about 100,000 in the New York metropolitan area (Kraly,n.d.).

In the United States, women, not men, dominated the movement, and itwas common for women to migrate first, later followed by their childrenand, in many cases, their husbands as well. Between 1967 and 1979, with theexception of two years, women in the legal stream have always outnumberedmen. The proportion of women was particularly high in the early years ofthe new immigration , as high as 76 and 73 percent for 1967 and 1968. It waseasier for women than men to get labor certification, largely due to thedemand for domestic labor in American cities. Women could also easilyobtain immigrant visas as nurses, and about a third of the legal Jamaicanimmigrants classified as professionals between 1962 and 1972 were nurses(Palmer, 1974:576). As the migration progressed, and a larger percentagequalified for immigrant status on the basis of family ties rather thanoccupation, women were probably as likely as men to have relatives in theUnited States to sponsor them. Women doubtless make up a high proportionof the illegal stream as well, partly because they can readily find jobs inprivate households as domestics, companions to the elderly and child-carehelpers (Foner, 1985).As in Britain, migrants to the United States have been more skilled thanthe average Jamaican. The migration to the United States in the past two



5/21

Jamaican Migrants in London and New York City 711

decades, however, has been marked by a much higher percentage ofprofessionals and other non-manual workers than the emigration to Britainin the 1950s and early 1960s. Of the approximately 86,000 legal Jamaicanimmigrants between 1967 and 1978 who were listed as workers, about 14percent were classified as professional, technical, and kindred workers andabout 13 percent as clerical and kindred workers (U.S. Immigration andNaturalization Service, Annual Reports). United States immigration lawsare mainly responsible for this occupational pattern since they have favoredhighly-trained workers.THE TWO STUDIES:LONDON AND NEW YORK 3In both New York and London, the main research technique was structured,in-depth interviews with a sample of Jamaicans chosen to control for sex,age, and length of time in the receiving society. All of the respondents hadmigrated to Britain or the United States when they were over 18 and, wheninterviewed, they were 28 or older. All had lived in Britain for at least 10years, having arrived between 1952 and 1963, and all had lived in New Yorkfor at least seven years, having arrived between 1962 and 1975. Each samplehad an equal number of men and women.The people interviewed in both cities lived in neighborhoods with largeconcentrations of Jamaicans: in London, in several working-class areas ofSouth and North London; in New York, in Brooklyn (mainly Crown Heightsand East Flatbush), southeast Queens, and the northeast Bronx. I locatedrespondents in London simply by knocking on doors in areas known to havemany Jamaican residents, while in New York I found respondents throughpersonal contacts and by attending church and association meetings. In all,110 people were interviewed in London (80 by me, 30 by an assistant), 40 inNew York (30 by me, 10 by an assistant).

Those interviewed in London were typical of first-generation adultJamaican migrants in Britain in terms of occupation, education, and age.Nearly all were between the ages of 30 and 50; most had no formal educationalqualifications beyond primary school; and the vast majority had working-classjobs before they left Jamaica and at the time of the London study. The NewYork sample was fairly representative of the wider, recent adult Jamaicanmigrant population in the United States in terms of occupation and education.It included a relatively high percentage of white-collar workers as well asmany who had attended or were presently attending secondary school or

3The methods used in the London study and the characteristicsof the London sample aredescribed fully in Foner (1978). For an elaboration of the methods used in New York and thecharacteristicsof the New York sample (aswell as a detailed comparison of the methods used inthe two studies), see, Foner (1983).



6/21

712 International Migration Review

college.4 Most of the men interviewed, probably like most recent adult maleJamaican migrants, were in their 30s and 40s, although the women were nodoubt older (half were 50 or older) than the typical adult female migrant whomoved to the United States in recent years.

Important as the initial structured interview was, I also learned about theJamaican migrant experience in other ways. In London, there were follow-upvisits with 20 people from the original sample. And in both cities, informaltalks, after the lengthy formal interview ended, gave people a chance to talkabout topics that interested them and to tell me more about their lives. InNew York, where I already knew many of the respondents or their closefriends from my previous fieldwork in Jamaica (Foner, 1973), these informaltalks sometimes lasted all afternoon or late into the evening, and on a fewoccasions I went to weddings or other social functions with people I hadinterviewed.BEING BLACK IN LONDON AND NEW YORK:THE SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCESWhether Jamaicans settled in London or New York, they experienced apainful change: being black was more of a stigma than it had been in Jamaica.As members of a racial minority group, they were subject to prejudice anddiscrimination of a sort they had not encountered back home.

This does not mean, of course, that black skin was not a stigma in Jamaica.Black skin has long been devalued on the Island, and this stems fromJamaica's history as a plantation colony based on African slavery. Whites, inthe days of slavery, were masters, and throughout the colonial period,rulers. Indeed, a white bias has permeated the entire society since the 18thcentury. To most lower-class Jamaicans ? who not only comprise the majorityof the population but who are, by and large, black ? being black is anothersymbol, along with their poverty, of their low social position.Blackness in Jamaica, however, is not in itself ? and has not been for thepast few decades ? a barrier to upward mobility or to social acceptance atthe top . For one thing, blacks are a majority on the Island. According to the1960 census, some 91 out of every 100 Jamaicans were, in Rex Nettleford's(1972:27) words, touched by the tarbrush: 76 percent were classified as pureAfrican and fewer than one percent as pure white or European. For another,culture, occupation, and wealth can override skin color in importance so

4According to INS figures, about 25 percent of the Jamaicanworkers who legally emigrated tothe United States between 1962and 1975were classified as professionals, managers, and clericalworkers. This figure is lower than the proportion of the New York sample in these occupationalcategories in the three months before leaving Jamaica(50percent) but not unlike the proportionof the sample in these jobs at the time of the study (33 percent). Because professional andwhite-collar jobs require comparatively advanced educational training, it is not surprising thatso many Jamaicans interviewed in New York had gone beyond primary school: 50 percent hadattended or were presently attending secondary school or college.



7/21

Jamaican Migrants in London and New York City 713that one can, in a sense, change color in Jamaica. Education, manners,wealth, and associates ? not just fair skin or such European features asstraight hair, thin lips, and a narrow nose

? are crucial. In Jamaica , oneBrooklyn migrant said, we didn't have color prejudice, we have classprejudice . Black or colored Jamaicans who become doctors or lawyers, forexample, or high-level civil servants, who acquire the cultural characteristicsassociated with white Europeans, and who maintain a respectable standardof living are often thought of as if they were white.Black and colored Jamaicans in influential and important jobs are hardlytoken representatives of their race. Colored Jamaicans, in fact, have longpredominated in middle-class occupations on the Island, a legacy from thedays of slavery when free people of color (the product of unions betweenwhite men and slave women) had economic and other privileges denied toslaves. While after emancipation in 1838 whites virtually monopolized thehighest positions on the Island and blacks, the lowest positions, coloredJamaicans were preferred for prestigious and well-paid occupations, partlybecause of prejudice and partly because they had prior access to education(Smith, 1970). The days of white rule are gone, of course, and middle-classJamaicans are less likely to be light-skinned. Since the end of World War II,and especially since independence

in 1962, black as well as colored Jamaicanshave dominated public affairs, and it is they who fill prestigious andprofessional positions in the Island. This is obviously quite different fromthe situation in Britain and the United States.

I wasn't aware of my color till I got here, honestly , said one New Yorkman. In nearly identical words, a London man told me he never knew he wasblack until he came to England. Both men, of course, knew they had blackskin when they lived in Jamaica. But at home they had been in good jobs (onewas a medium-sized farmer, the other a policeman) and they were respectedin their communities. In England and the United States they are, as blacks,members of a definite minority. Education, income, and culture do not, as inJamaica, partially erase one's blackness. Nor are whites sensitive to shadedifferences, as people are in Jamaica. Whatever their achievements or theirshade, Jamaicans, as blacks, are victims of racial discrimination in housing,employment, and education, and of hostility from sections of the whitepopulation. Thus, the two men cited above, like so many other Jamaicans inNew York and London, became for the first time acutely and painfully awarethat black skin was a significant status marker.

Although being black is more of a stigma in London and New York, themeaning and effects of blackness are not the same among Jamaicans in thetwo cities. This is related to the enormous contrasts in the structure of racerelations in London and New York.

The crucial difference in the racial contexts of the two societies is that inNew York, unlike in London, there is a large, residentially segregated



8/21

714 International Migration Reviewnative black population. New York Jamaicans, submerged in the wider blackcommunity, move in a more black social world than their London coun?terparts. At the same time, however, Jamaicans in New York differentiatethemselves from indigenous blacks. The net result is that their position asblack Jamaicans is less painful and their contacts with whites more limitedthan in London. It is also easier for them to participate in many activities.THE STING OF RACIAL PREJUDICEWhat was striking was that the Jamaicans I spoke with in New York seemedless upset by racial prejudice than those in London. Racial discriminationand prejudice were dominant themes in the interviews in London. Againand again, migrants expressed bitterness about discriminatory practices thatlimited their opportunities and about daily encounters with racial prejudicein informal personal relations and formal institutional settings. In NewYork, complaints about racial prejudice came up much less often in bothinformal conversations and answers to structured interview questions. Table1 shows that a smaller proportion of New York Jamaicans mentioned racialprejudice in explaining their answers to questions about returning home,about expectations of life and job opportunities abroad, and about changesin their position since leaving Jamaica. A smaller percentage in New Yorkalso said that Jamaican migrants are definitely not treated the same way asnative whites. When Jamaicans in New York did talk about race relations,differences from and interactions with American blacks ? not Americanwhites ? were often uppermost on their minds.

ExpectationsOne reason why the Jamaicans interviewed in New York complained lessabout racial prejudice than the London migrants is that they had morerealistic expectations of the racial situation, and thus were less disillusioned,when they arrived abroad {cf Sutton and Makiesky, 1975; Thomas-Hope,1975).

So many Jamaicans in London were especially bitter and pained by racialhostility because they simply did not expect it. When most left for London,Jamaica was still a British colony, and they thought of themselves not just asJamaican, but as British citizens. Brought up with a respect for Britishculture and people and a lingering faith in British fairmindedness (Suttonand Makiesky, 1975:124), most expected, when they came to the mothercountry , to have the right to live and work in Britain and to be treated, asthey were taught back home, on the basis of merit rather than color.

They were in for a rude awakening. There were many sources of dis?appointment. The buildings looked ordinary and even Buckingham Palace



9/21

Jamaican Migrants in London and New York City 715TABLE 1

Percentage in New York and London Samples Mentioning RacialPrejudice in Explaining Answers to Interview Questions

Question

London SampleMentioningPrejudice(%)

N.Y. SampleMentioningPrejudice(%)Do you now intend to remain permanentlyin N.Y./London?How does life in N.Y./London compare withwhat you thought it would be like?Do you think your position now is better,worse, or about the same as it was in Jamaica?Do you think that getting a good job is easierin Jamaicaor in the U.S./England?

Do you think Jamaicans in N.Y./Londonare treated the same way as whiteAmerican/English people?

17181525

10

London Sample WhoSaid Definitely No(%)N.Y. Sample WhoSaid Definitely No(%)

67 58N= (110) (40)

was drab compared to what they had read and been told. Not all Englishpeople, they quickly discovered, were on a pedestal like the governmentofficials, estate owners, and professionals they encountered back home.More important, they soon realized that to most English people they were, asblacks, considered lower-class and inferior to whites. We had been taughtall about British history, the Queen, and that we 'belonged' , one man toldme. When I got here ... I discovered we weren't part of things. My loyalty atage 15 was to England. I felt that Jamaica was part of England. The shock wasto find I was a stranger. And not just any stranger, but a black stranger who,as another informant put it, is not a human being, is something else .

Jamaicans who came to New York were not so shocked by the racialsituation. To be sure, some were disillusioned when they found that the citywas less glamorous and offered fewer economic opportunities than they hadimagined. But many had a good idea of what they would find. They hadlearned through the Jamaican mass media, heard through relatives andfriends, and, in quite a few cases, actually seen for themselves on previous



10/21

716 International Migration Reviewvisits what life was like in New York. What is important here is that Jamaicanswere aware of American racism before they came. Of course, it was stilldifficult, as I have pointed out, to adjust to the reality of being black in whiteAmerica. Nonetheless, migrants did not bring with them a notion of likenessto Americans, black or white, but rather an awareness of their distinctnessas Jamaicans (Sutton and Makiesky, 1975:129). They knew about Americanwhites' attitudes of racial superiority and about racial discrimination,although the successes of earlier migrants made them confident that despiteAmerican racism they, too, could succeed (Sutton and Makiesky, 1975:125).The Structure of Race RelationsBut whatever the migrants' expectations of life abroad, the reality of thestructure of race relations ultimately determined their experiences as blacksin their home ? and is the key factor explaining why the Jamaicans in NewYork complained less about racial prejudice than those in London.In London, Jamaican, and other West Indian, migrants are a highlyvisible minority. They, along with immigrants from India and Pakistan,moved into a society that, in racial terms, was homogeneous and white. Theterm immigrant soon became a code word among the English for the largenumbers of blacks who, for the first time, lived in England. A nationalanti-immigrant ideology has taken hold as black immigrants are increasinglyperceived as a dangerous group responsible for social ills. In the course ofpolitical debate, in the treatment of topics connected with them in the media,and in statements by public officials, black immigrants have been stigmatizedas an inferior group (Rex and Tomlinson, 1979:65, 69). West Indians are alltoo aware that they are branded in this way.While West Indians in London are constantly in the public eye as a socialproblem or threat to the English way of life, in New York they are, as blacks,largely invisible as immigrants to the white population (Bryce-Laporte,1973). Large-scale immigration is nothing new in New York and there is along tradition of ethnic diversity. Far from being the center of publicattention, West Indians tend to be ignored ? swallowed up in and partlysheltered by the already large native population among whom they live.5When West Indians do come to the attention of white society, they areusually compared with native blacks rather than with the white immigrant ortotal population (Bryce-Laporte, 1973). In Britain, West Indians as well asthe British generally measure West Indians' achievements against those ofthe white majority, and this comparison places West Indians at a cleardisadvantage. In the United States, their achievements are viewed by the

5This invisibility as blacks in racially-divided America also has negative consequences forWest Indians. As Bryce-Laporte (1973, 1979)points out, their distinctive problems and uniqueproclivities are generally overlooked . Their demands and protests as blacks are also neglectedby whites.



11/21


12/21

718 International Migration Reviewthat American whites treat Jamaicans and other West Indians better thanthey do black Americans. In fact, a good number did not even talk abouttreatment by American whites at all but immediately launched into a dis?cussion of whites' differential treatment of American and West Indian blacks.

Although a few people, like one Bronx man, insisted that once you areblack you are not treated fairly, it doesn't matter where you're from ,many more stressed that West Indians are more respected and readilyaccepted than black Americans. You're black, but you're not black , said anurse who felt it was easier for a Jamaican than a black American to get a job.One man went so far as to say that some whites don't even categorize WestIndians as blacks. The difficulty, as several people noted, is that whites donot always know which black is which . Until they find out, as one womantold me, I'm handled with kid gloves . Once you say something , one manexplained, and they recognize you're not from this country, they treat you aa little different .8

It is not just that Jamaicans in New York compared themselves, andthought they were compared by whites, favorably to American blacks.It is also important to emphasize that Jamaicans there live out much of theirlives apart from the presence of whites. This social separation reduces theopportunities for racial tensions and conflict to develop.

Although New York Jamaicans have varied contacts with whites at work,they live mainly in areas of black residence in Brooklyn, Queens, and theBronx. Rarely are they found living outside the usual neighborhoods ofWest Indian residence or of the black population. When they walk in thestreet, go to the shops, talk to neighbors, worship, and send their children toschool, it is, on the whole, other blacks (native as well as foreign-born) whomthey see and deal with. And when they compete for housing and, especiallyin the case of service workers, for jobs, their rivals are apt to be blacks andother minorities rather than whites [cf Thomas-Hope, 1975). Indeed, whenseveral Jamaicans in New York spoke of racial hostility, they referred tohostility, not from whites, but from American blacks who blamed WestIndians for taking away jobs from American blacks. Those who expressedthe most frustration and bitterness about racial prejudice generally camefrom the ranks of the high-level white-collar workers and skilled tradesmen? that is, from the groups most likely to compete with whites for jobs.9These white-collar workers and skilled tradesmen mainly complained aboutthe difficulties they had, as blacks, in getting employment and advancing on

8Forty twopercent of the recentJamaicanmigrants in Monica Gordon's (1979)sample said thatAmericanswere more friendly when they knew you wereJamaican, and a majority said that theyalways let others know they were Jamaican.9 Although those who expressed the most frustration and bitterness about racial prejudicetended to come fromthe ranksof high-level white-collarworkersand skilled tradesmen, this doesnot mean that all the white-collar workers in the New York sample complained aboutprejudice.Farfrom it. Indeed, given the comparatively high percentage of white-collar workersin the New



13/21

Jamaican Migrants in London and New York City 719the job and about their greater chances of being laid off than whites.

Jamaicans in London, as in New York, move largely in Jamaican (andWest Indian) social circles, but they are less insulated from contact withwhites than Jamaicans in New York. In spite of the fairly dense concentrationof West Indians in particular areas and in particular streets, there is not thesame pattern of residential segregation found in New York City. The highestproportion West Indians formed of any London borough's population in1971 was 6.5 percent and of a London ward's population, 21.3 percent (Lee,1977:15, 24). The percentages change little if the other main non-whitegroups (Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis) are included. A large numberof whites (primarily working-class whites) lived in most South Londonstreets where I interviewed Jamaicans in 1973, and the white presence isevident in most other areas of dense West Indian settlement in Britain.

In black sections of New York, as one West Indian activist in Londonpointed out, you can walk through and not see a white face, except passing ina car. But that's not the case in Britain. We see them every day. We movewith them every day (Darcus Howe, quoted in Cockburn and Ridgeway,1982:11). Mrs. S., who had been in London for 14 years before moving toNew York in 1969, now lived in East Flatbush and worked, as she had inLondon, as a nurse's aide in a large hospital. She was adamant that racialprejudice was worse in England. In England now, it face you every day.Here you don't feel it at all.

In the street, parks, shops, pubs, and schools, Jamaicans in London see,and often must have dealings with, whites. Many incidents that Londonmigrants described to illustrate their experiences with racial prejudiceinvolved contacts with whites in the neighborhood ? queuing for buses, forexample, buying groceries at the corner shop, speaking to neighbors, orobserving fights between local white and black children. And, as comparedto New York, Jamaicans at all occupational levels are more likely to competefor housing and jobs with whites.SOCIAL, POLITICAL, AND OCCUPATIONAL ACTIVITIESEvidence from the wider Jamaican, and general West Indian, population inthe two cities indicates that being submerged in a large native black populationYork, as opposed to the London, sample, one would have expected a higher percentage of NewYork respondents to complain about racial prejudice in answer to interview questions. White-collar workersexperience the painful discrepancy between their high occupational status, on theone hand, and their low racial status, on the other. And in New York, they are the ones likely tocompete with whites for jobs. But it is the expectations migrants had of New York and Londonand the different racial structures in the two cities ? not the different occupational compositionof the two samples ? that explains why New York respondents complained less about racialprejudice. In both the London and New Yorksamples, it should be added, men were much morelikely than women to mention racialprejudice in answer to the questions listed in Table 1. In fact,in New York only three women mentioned racial prejudice in this context.



14/21

720 International Migration Reviewin New York, but not in London, has other implications for Jamaicanmigrants' lives.ChurchFirst consider patterns of church involvement. When Jamaicans moved toLondon in the 1950s and looked for churches to attend, what they found werewhite religious groups where they came up against racial prejudice andhostility, ranging from condescending acceptance to outright rejection.

Rejection by white churches is the main reason why, as so many com?mentators note, there has been a noticeable fall-off in church membershipand attendance among West Indians since they have moved to England (e.g.,Hill, 1971; Pearson, 1981). In view of this trend, it is not surprising that onlya minority in the London sample ? 25 percent ? attended church at leastonce a month. Many West Indians, in addition, find services in whitecongregations dull and lifeless compared to what they were used to backhome. Further, there is no social pressure from the local white community,as there was from the community back home, to go to church. The Englishworking-classes among whom West Indians live and work, are generally notactive church-goers so that non-attendance can even be viewed as conformityto working-class English culture (See, Hill, 1971).

Although church participation has fallen since West Indians came toBritain, there has been, from the early 1960s on, a marked rise in Pentecostalsects among them (Calley, 1965; Hill, 1971; Pearson, 1981; Pryce, 1979).Indeed, one writer speaks of West Indian churches in England as synonomouswith Pentecostal sects (Pryce, 1979). West Indian Pentecostal sects, with theirwholly black membership and leadership, provide a haven in a largely whiteworld. In these churches, West Indians need not fear rejection as blacks, andthey have the chance to rise to positions of influence and prestige. Inaddition to providing a sense of fellowship and security among other WestIndians, the sects, which appeal to working-class West Indians in Britain(Calley, 1965; Pryce, 1979), offer forms of spiritual release and promises ofsalvation to compensate for the deprivations and racism that migrantsexperience in this world.

In New York, by contrast, Jamaicans who arrived in the 1960s and lookedfor churches did not have to attend white congregations. Living in mainlyblack neighborhoods, where there were often already many West Indianresidents, they could go to churches where blacks predominated and blackministers presided. Of course, tensions undoubtedly developed withAmerican blacks in church, and this is probably one reason why manychurches underwent a process of West-Indianization as American blacks leftand West Indians took over. Although some Jamaicans, who lived inneighborhoods where the racial balance was shifting, attended churches



15/21

Jamaican Migrants in London and New York City 721with many whites, they were rarely the only blacks or even members of asmall racial minority in church. New York migrants were thus less likelythan their counterparts in London to meet rejection in church on the basisof color. I didn't go to church in England , explained Mrs. S., the Brooklynwoman who had lived for 14 years in London and who now attends a mixedAmerican black-West Indian Presbyterian church in her neighborhood everyweek. Didn't go there. English people more hate; they are more bitter.

Furthermore, American blacks, unlike English working-class whites, havea vibrant and active church tradition so that the communities into whichJamaicans moved did support church-going. And when West Indians beganto dominate or form congregations on their own in Brooklyn, Queens, andthe Bronx, these were not strictly, or even mainly, Pentecostal groups. Thevast majority of West Indian churches in New York are higher in thereligious status hierarchy, both here and in the West Indies, and more

respectable than Pentecostal churches, which are marked by a high degreeof emotional participation and such practices as going into trance-like statesand speaking in tongues. That Pentecostalism is less appealing in New Yorkis linked to the fact that West Indian churches there draw on higher-statusconstituents than those in London ? mainly because the West Indianpopulation in New York contains a higher proportion of professional andwhite-collar workers than in London, but also because church-going, Isuspect, is more widespread among the entire West Indian community inNew York.

Just how prevalent church participation is among Jamaican and otherWest Indian migrants in New York, and whether it has dropped significantly,is a subject about which we know little. In my own sample, there wasrelatively little fall-off in attendance from Jamaica, and 55 percent went tochurch at least once a month in New York. These figures, however, may havebeen high because a number of respondents (eight) were located through theSeventh Day Adventist church. Studies based on more representative samplesare clearly needed to probe how many, and what types of, Jamaican migrantsin New York are regular church-goers.Occupational SuccessIf the presence of a large native black population in New York eased Jamaicans'acceptance into church groups, it has also provided aspiring Jamaicanbusinessmen, professionals, and even politicians with advantages they lackin Britain.

In general, West Indians are occupationally more successful in the UnitedStates than in Britain (See, Foner, 1979 for a full discussion of this issue).Obviously, the fact that the recent emigration to the United States has beenmarked by a higher percentage of professional and other non-manual workers



16/21

722 International Migration Reviewthan the emigration to Britain in the 1950s and early 1960s has a lot to do withthis differential success. A larger number of West Indians who moved to theUnited States brought with them the skills as well as the confidence that camewith their relatively high-status jobs back home. But the presence andresidential concentration of so many American blacks in New York (andother American cities where West Indians live) has also influenced theiroccupational achievements.West Indians in New York have been more successful in business thantheir counterparts in London partly because there is a ready-made, ratherlarge, constituency they can cultivate for their enterprises: the American aswell as the West Indian black community. Most black businesses in theUnited States depend on black patronage. Jamaicans and other West Indiansin London are less likely to invest their savings in small enterprises, I wouldargue, because there are fewer West Indians in London than blacks in NewYork to furnish a market, because they are a minority in most boroughs andwards, and because they fear that English whites will not patronize blackbusinesses.

Jamaicans with professional aspirations have also benefited from thepresence of a large native black population in the United States. In the past,when entry into white universities and professional schools was extremelydifficult for blacks, all-black colleges, Howard University in particular,provided medical and other professional training for many West Indians.More recently, affirmative action programs (the result of the civil rightsmovement and civil rights legislation) have enabled many Jamaicans andother West Indians to acquire professional training at white-dominatedinstitutions. In Britain, by contrast, no independent system of black highereducation has been available. Nor have affirmative action programs beeninstituted to encourage West Indians to obtain university education andtraining for the learned professions. In Britain, moreover, West Indians inprofessions based on private practices might find it difficult to establishthemselves because the small size of the black population offers only alimited market for their services, and they have to vie with British profes?sionals for white clientele. In New York and other American cities, West In?dian professionals can attract American black as well as West Indian clients.

The absence of a sizeable native black population in Britain has also meantthat potential West Indian political leaders have a narrow base, while WestIndians in America have been able to utilize the black community and theblack vote as a foundation for achieving positions of political prominence.Political RepresentativesIn New York, large numbers of Jamaicans live in districts that are representedin the City Council, state legislative bodies, and even the United StatesCongress by black politicians who speak for black interests. In some sections



17/21

Jamaican Migrants in London and New York City 723of Brooklyn, in fact, they have been represented by elected officials of WestIndian descent, Shirley Chisholm the best known among them. This is a farcry from the situation in London and indeed the rest of Britain whereJamaicans are represented by whites in Westminster and, on the whole, inlocal councils as well. This is despite the fact that Jamaicans have, since theirarrival, automatically had the right to vote in Britain, whereas most recentJamaican migrants in New York, because they are not naturalized citizens,cannot vote.10

Again, the size and geographical concentration of the black population inNew York are crucial. In New York, most Jamaicans live in districts whereblack voters predominate while in London they are outnumbered by whites.Indeed, the black electorate in Britain (including those of Asian as well asWest Indian origin) is a minority in virtually all constituencies. The differentstructure of American and British politics is also a factor. Ethnic politics isthe stuff out of which American urban politics is made, and ethnic groupshave long provided blocs of votes to elect ethnic candidates who representthe groups' interests. Blacks have followed this pattern to gain politicalleverage. Not so in Britain where politics is conducted in class terms. Rexand Tomlinson (1979) argue, in fact, that the class basis of British politics hasprevented black migrants there from mobilizing through ethnic organizationsto buy their way into the political system. Another difference in the Britishand American political systems works against blacks in Britain. Becausethere are fewer electoral posts to compete for than in the United States,British parties do not have the same opportunity as American parties toabsorb the growing political ambitions of an emergent minority (Crewe,1983:261). It is true that black candidates have increasingly been chosen inBritain to stand in heavily black wards in local elections ? and by 1982, therewere about 70 local councillors from the Asian and West Indian communities,mainly in London (Crewe, 1983:278). Yet the growth in the number of blackcouncillors in Britain has, as Crewe (1983:278) notes, been glacially slow.Even when blacks are selected to stand in local elections, inter-ethnicanimosities among the different non-white groups may prevent them fromrallying round the black candidate. Due to racist sentiment, there is also theloss of white votes (which may not compensate for the gain in black votes) tocontend with (Phizlackea and Miles, 1980:36).CONCLUSIONSThis article has made clear that the responses of Jamaican migrants to lifeabroad are neither inevitable nor natural . Much depends on where they10The majority of the London respondents, like West Indians in Britain generally, are LaborParty supporters(See,Foner, 1978:145-48).Although I did not probe voting patternsamong NewYork respondents who were U.S. citizens, it should be noted that only three people (men andwomen in high-level professional jobs) said they had become or planned to become citizensbecause they wanted the right to vote.



18/21

724 International Migration Reviewmove. Structural features of British and American societies play a large rolein shaping the perceptions Jamaicans have of themselves and of theirsituations as well as their patterns of behavior.The focus here, of course, is on race ? a critical factor in Jamaican migrants'lives. In Britain and the United States, Jamaicans come to have a heightenedconsciousness of themselves as a black minority enclosed within a world ofmore powerful whites (Sutton and Makiesky, 1975:130). While Jamaicanmigrants in both countries have a new sense of racial consciousness, becauseof the difficulties they confront as blacks in a white society, in New York theracial context provides Jamaicans with certain advantages that their coun?terparts in London do not share.

The presence and residential segregation of the large black community inNew York means that Jamaicans there are less apt than in London to meet,and thus to have painful contacts with, whites in various neighborhoodarenas such as stores, churches, restaurants, and schools. Even their politicalrepresentatives in New York are often black. The large New York blackcommunity also offers a potential clientele and market for the services ofJamaican professionals and entrepreneurs. And whereas in London,Jamaicans are a constant focus of public attention as a social problem, in NewYork they are largely invisible to whites in a sea of anonymous black faces.When white New Yorkers do become aware of the Jamaicans and other WestIndians in their midst, they often compare them favorably to Americanblacks. Indeed, Jamaicans in New York are eager to let whites know theirnationality because they believe they will then receive better treatment. Akey aspect of New York Jamaicans' own identity ? and a source of pride and asense of self-worth ? is their difference from, indeed, their feeling of super?iority to, black Americans.

These comments pertain to first-generation Jamaican migrants who wereborn and raised on the Island. A crucial question is how the structure of racerelations in Britain and the United states affects the migrants' children.Although my own research did not include the second generation in eitherLondon or New York, being black and of Jamaican descent undoubtedlymeans something very different to second-generation Jamaicans in the twocities.

Numerous studies have shown that the racial structure of British societyputs second-generation Jamaicans in London in a kind of limbo. On the onehand, they are less likely than their parents to identify themselves as Jamaican.On the other hand, encounters with discrimination ? including their extremedifficulty in getting decent jobs and victimization by the police ? underminetheir belief that they are British. You feel as if you're in a no-man's-landbecause you have an English accent ... but you've got a black skin , said a21-year-old Londoner of Jamaican descent. I was born here, but I don't feelBritish ... But the West Indies isn't home either, it's some place thousands of



19/21

Jamaican Migrants in London and New York City 725miles away' (quoted in Lowenthal, 1978:91). The response of many has beento focus on their blackness as a basis for identification. In fact, certainbehaviors ? devotion to reggae music, for example, involvement in theRastafarian movement, and using a Creole dialect ? symbolize their identityas British-born blacks (Cashmore and Troyna, 1982; Sutcliffe, 1982).How the racial structure in New York influences second-generationJamaicans is an open question. As far as I know, there are, to date no studiesof second-generation Jamaicans or West Indians in New York. How doesbeing submerged in the wider black population affect their lives? In whatways do second-generation Jamaicans in New York remain apart from, orintegrated into, the American black population? Do they share in the largerblack cause? Do they begin to identify themselves as black Americans? Dothey still regard themselves in some ways as Jamaican or West Indian? Anddo they capitalize in any way on their distinctive cultural background?Whether we look at first or second generation Jamaican migrants, it isplain that the meaning and effects of blackness vary considerably in NewYork and London. This article has explored some of these contrasts. Furthercomparative studies will doubtless shed additional light on the significanceof race to Jamaicans on both sides of the Atlantic.

REFERENCES

Bennett, L.1971 Colonization in Reverse , Breaklight:The Poetryof the Caribbean. dited by A. Salkey.Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.Bryce-Laporte, R.S.1979 New York City and the New Caribbean Immigrant: A Contextual Statement ,Interna?tionalMigrationReview,13(2):214-234.1973 BlackImmigrants , ThroughDifferentEyes.Edited by P.I. Rose, S. Rothman, and W.J.Wilson. New York: Oxford University Press.Calley, M.1965 God'sPeople: West ndian Pentecostal ects n England.London: Oxford University Press.Cashmore, E. and B. Troyna1982 Black Youth n Crisis.London: George Allen and Unwin.Cockburn, A. and J. Ridgeway1982 Revolt of the Underclass , The VillageVoice,Jan. Pp. 6-12.Crewe, I.1983 Representation and the Ethnic Minorities in Britain , EthnicPluralismand PublicPolicy.Edited by N. Glazer and K. Young. London: Heinemann.Deakin, N.1970 Colour,Citizenshipnd BritishSociety.London: Panther Books.



20/21

726 International Migration ReviewFoner, N.n.d. TheJamaicans:Race and Ethnicity among Migrants in New YorkCity ,NewImmigrantsinNew York.Edited by N. Foner. New York:Columbia University Press. In preparation.1985 Sex Roles and Sensibilities: Jamaican Women in New York and London , InternationalMigration:The FemaleExperience.Edited by C. Brettell and R. Simon. Totowa, N.J.:Rowman and Allanheld.1983 JamaicanMigrants:A Comparative Analysis of the New Yorkand London Experience ,OccasionalPaperNo. 36, New YorkResearchProgram n Inter-AmericanAffairs,New YorkUniversity.1979 West Indians in New York City and London: A Comparative Analysis , International

MigrationReview,13(2).-284-297.1978 JamaicaFarewell:amaicanMigrantsn London.Berkeley: University of California Press.1973 Statusand Power in RuralJamaica:A Study of Educational nd PoliticalChange.New York:Teachers College Press.Forsythe, D.1976 Black Immigrants and the American Ethos: Theories and Observation , CaribbeanImmigrationto the United States.Edited by R.S. Bryce-Laporte and D.M. Mortimer.Washington, D.C: Research Institute on Immigration and Ethnic Studies, SmithsonianInstitution.Glantz, O.1978 Native Sons and Immigrants: Some Beliefs and Values of American-Born and WestIndian Blacks at Brooklyn College , Ethnicity, :189-202.Glazer, N. and D. Moynihan1970 BeyondtheMeltingPot.Cambridge: MIT Press.Gordon, M.1979 Identification and Adaptation: A Study of Two Groups of JamaicanImmigrants in NewYork City , Unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University of New York.Hill, C.1971 BlackChurches:WestIndian and AfricanSectsin Britain. London: Community and RaceRelations Unit of the British Council of Churches.Kraly, E.P.n.d. U.S. Immigration Policy and the Immigrant Populations of New York ,NewImmigrantsinNew York.Edited by N. Foner. New York:Columbia University Press. In preparation.Lee, T.1977 Race and Residence: The Concentration nd Dispersalof Immigrants n London. Oxford:Clarendon Press.Lomas, G.G.B. and E. Monck1977 The ColoredPopulationof GreatBritain:Employmentand EconomicActivity,1971.London:The Runnymede Trust.Lowenthal, D.1978 West Indian Emigrants Overseas , Caribbean ocial Relations.Edited by C.G. Clarke.Monograph No. 8, Center for Latin American Studies, University of Liverpool.



21/21

Jamaican Migrants in London and New York City 727

1972 West ndian Societies.London: Oxford University Press.McLaughlin, M.1981 West Indian Immigrants: Their Social Networks and Ethnic Identification ,Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University.Nettleford, R.1972 Identity,Race andProtest nJamaica.New York: William Morrow.Palmer, R.W.1974 A Decade of West Indian Migration to the United States, 1962-1972: An EconomicAnalysis , SocialandEconomicStudies,23:571-588.Peach, C.1968 West ndianMigration:A SocialGeography.London: Oxford University Press.Pearson, D.G.1981 Race,Classand PoliticalActivism:A Study of West ndians n Britain.Westmead: Gower.Phizacklea, A. and R. Miles1980 Labourand Racism.London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Pryce, K.1979 EndlessPressure.Harmondsworth: Penguin.Rex, J. and S. Tomlinson1979 ColonialImmigrantsn a BritishCity.London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Roberts, G.1979 ThePopulationofJamaica.Millwood, N.Y.: Kraus Reprint. Originally published in 1957.Rose, E.J.B., et.al1969 Colourand Citizenship. ondon: Oxford University Press.Smith, R.T.1970 Social Stratificationin the Caribbean ,Essaysn ComparativeocialStratification.dited byL. Plotnicov and A. Tuden. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Sowell, T.1981 EthnicAmerica.New York: Basic Books.1978 Essaysand Data onAmericanEthnicGroups.Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.Sutcliffe, D.1982 BritishBlackEnglish.Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Sutton, C. and S. Makiesky1975 Migrationand West Indian Racial and EthnicConsciousness ,Migration ndDevelopment.Edited by H. Safa and B. duToit. The Hague: Mouton.Thomas-Hope, E.1975 The Adaptation of Migrants from the English-Speaking Caribbeanto Select Centres ofBritain and North America . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society ofApplied Anthropology, Amsterdam.Wright, P.L.1968 The ColouredWorkern BritishIndustry.London: Oxford University Press.

race and color jamaican migrants in london and new york city

Documents