The concept of the “Cosmopolitan Canopy” is one that I have disagreements with. I’m not arguing that folk ethnography doesn’t happen or that diplomatic and respectful conversations don’t occur between different groups of people at these places. I have very well participated in actively making assumptions about individuals in public spaces as well as have participated in open and lively conversations with people different from me at Bowdoin and in public spaces back home. What I do have my reservations towards is this notion of the “Cosmopolitan Canopy” as a “neutral social setting, which no one group expressly owns but all are encouraged to share”. Bluntly put, I think if a public space in this country is not meant as a space clearly designed for the use or the appreciation of certain marginalized racial or cultural groups, then that space is expressly owned by a dominant group by default and no such neutral space can actually exist.

This claim is probably more obvious is public spaces of the suburbs which white America still overwhelmingly owns. In addition, it is clear that places like The Spot or the pigeon pet shop in Bushwick, Brooklyn are spaces dominated and controlled by marginalized racial groups, therefore, not neutral. They offer supporting communities and safe havens for these people, which are hard to get elsewhere. But even in the most diverse places within our cities where there is no line between who owns what space, a hierarchy between the people will always be invisibly present in these areas. This is due to the institutional racism of this country and the many ways privileged individuals in these areas will continue to perpetuate such prejudice and discrimination through miniscule actions that are often overlooked. The question about the neutrality of a social space isn’t just about which groups are more likely to use such space, but which groups are more encouraged to use said space and how they act in these spaces.

The High Line is an example of what could be a cosmopolitan canopy, but shows signs that it isn’t neutral after all. This greenway is open to the public, which means anyone can visit and make use of it. But as Loughran argues on his article about the High Line, there are ways in which this public space is more inviting to a certain demographic while it indirectly discourages food vendors or bottle collectors to come near the site. Again, this space is open for everyone to engage in as a cosmopolitan canopy, but the space was clearly meant for the white middle class to use because of how the owners of the High Line secretly implemented actions to prevent the other groups from using the space.

Another example I recall is from Victor Rios’s “Dummy Smart” where Rios talked about a white employer interviewing Ronny for a job at a restaurant. The restaurant is supposed to act as a cosmopolitan canopy because any one can technically go in, eat, and socialize. But the institutional racism takes a role in defining how the employer and Ronny both act with one another. The employer conducts a false folk ethnography of Ronny as an unreliable and lazy black teenager and she gets away with these false stereotypes because this is what the mainstream society has taught her to categorize people like Ronny as. Ronny also plays a role through using his “organic capital” to show his employer that he is not what she thinks of him. He does this by refusing to give her a hand shake and by not looking her straight in the eyes, which further worsens her initial thoughts of him.

Even in public spaces that may seem pretty neutral, marginalized groups may have to act in certain ways in order to prevent themselves from being stigmatized by the privileged groups. These privilege groups are free to act as they are without any repercussions while the marginalized groups may act in alternative ways in order to navigate through public spaces like a cosmopolitan canopy. Students of color may perhaps feel this way while studying in areas like Smith Union or the library. It shows that even in cosmopolitan canopies, marginalized groups may be forced to play a different role while privileged groups do not need to change their roles. Thus, through this ownership and assertion of their own identities, the privileged also have ownership of any so called “neutral space”, which can defy its existence.

Constructing the Ghetto, W.E.B DuBois

The Missing Link & The Construction of the Ghetto, Massey and Denton

Based on the readings and class discussions on the definition of “ghetto”, I have come to the overall conclusion that ghettos were highly concentrated African American neighborhoods in cities that were as a result of racist procedures coming from the government to isolate African Americans from white citizens. These procedures include the Home Owners Loan Corporation and the Federal Housing Administration in the 1930s. But as I read and discussed in class, I pondered the fact if we all lived in ghettos. I took the definition of ghetto from the readings as a place of a highly segregated racial community of any race as opposed to just applying it to African Americans. If that’s the case, I felt that based on my own studies and life exposure to American cities, the majority of big metropolitan areas are just a bunch of ghettos compressed into one big city.

However, I also felt that there was something off by having the term “ghetto” associated to just any racially homogenous neighborhood, especially those of white communities. The reason I say this is because in this modern media culture that I grew up with, the term “ghetto” always seemed to be correlated with synonyms, such as “unappealing”, “poor”, “violent”, and “minority”. Growing up in NYC, all the neighborhoods I ever visited that were predominantly habited by white citizens were always and still are rich, clean, organized, and safe. Specifically, I am describing neighborhoods, such as the Upper East Side, Midtown, and Lincoln Center, where one will rarely find any black or Latinx residents. These affluent and white neighborhoods makes my neighborhood seem more like the ghetto we discussed in class if we were to compare them.

I could even take my argument further by offering some background history of my own neighborhood. While the NYC housing crisis and drug epidemic of the late 70s and 80s affected the whole city, the effects were more pronounced in areas of high minority concentration, such as the boroughs of Bronx, Brooklyn, and upper Manhattan, where my neighborhood resides. While things started to flip for the better during the 1990s (as a result of new policies implemented to improve NYC housing and reduce crime), in many ways, my neighborhood as well as the communities in other boroughs to this day are still recovering from the dilemma that once engulfed them more than two decades ago. Meanwhile, places like the Upper East side had fewer or less escalated problems than the others outer communities faced during this time. And the racial make-up from these neighborhoods hasn’t changed. The Upper East Side during the 80s was still mostly white residents while Washington Heights is still Caribbean residents, mostly from the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico (although it seems to be changing as a result of gentrification).

In many ways, I always felt that a ghetto was always used as a term to describe a neighborhood with the majority of the population compromising of minority groups along with low safety, weak schools, and low economic activity. That’s why it feels weird for me to call something like the Upper East side as a ghetto. I even become skeptical calling an affluent black community a ghetto. A ghetto as I was raised to believe in, doesn’t necessarily have to be a typical de-industrialized black community with abandoned houses, abandoned lawns, broken windows, and squatters living in vacant places (much of what stereotypical online photos of Detroit have become). Instead, I’ve always seen a minority neighborhood with residents of low human capital, low income, and a place continuously recovering from effects of crime and drug era decades ago enough to call a ghetto. And obviously, any neighborhood with the same characteristics of people like the ones stated above and a neighborhood with a current ongoing drug and crime problem is definitely a ghetto.