As fluid as Los Angeles, let 'Eastside' be 'Eastside'

I've changed my mind. While watching the newly inflamed debate in Los Angeles right now over the actual, for-real, 100% factual boundary of what is Eastside and Westside, in a city that has always had trouble defining its boundaries to begin with, I think fluidity on those definitions from here on out is the way to go.

Let's relax a little, first off. At Jesus Sanchez's new blog, an anonymous commenter called him an "idiot" for the unpardonable crime of using the term "Eastsider" in his masthead. Total dick move, come on. This kind of discourse is convincing me that Eastside essentialists need to chill out. Here's why.

The boundaries and borders and cores and nodes of Los Angeles have and always will be shifting, like the city's very culture, its competing visions of itself. Lines are continually negotiable. From what we're learning today, an early east-west demarcation seems to have been given to streets radiating in both directions from Main Street in downtown. Later on came Western Avenue and Eastern Avenue, hinting at a subsequent shifting in the poles. Who knows when or how La Brea became such a powerful line in the sand. It doesn't really matter.

Because as L.A. grows and transforms, and it's always growing, always transforming, change is the only constant. That may bother some who maintain super-strict readings of its intra-regional borders, but well, what are you going to do? I say listen to Mike Kelley:

My personal belief is that the term East Side is just the vernacular of the particular group using the term. Its appropriate if the person receiving the communication understands what is being referenced since there is no official city designated East or West Side.

The root of the anxiety for some is of course the gradual gentrification of Eastside proper. But this is how we can avoid trouble. There must be uniform consensus that defining Eastside fluidly should not erase the traditional historical cultural "Eastside" of the universal imagination, the old-school brown capital.

Just school your friends: The true Eastside will always be east of the river, but the city is big enough to have different perspectives on where East and West begin and end today, in 2008, and moving forward.

* Photo above via LA Eastside.

Comments

[kualyque]

>>The root of the anxiety for some is of course the gradual gentrification of Eastside proper. But this is how we can avoid trouble. There must be uniform consensus that defining Eastside fluidly should not erase the traditional historical cultural "Eastside" of the universal imagination, the old-school brown capital.<<

but dude that's exactly what's happening and what these folks are responding to, whether through what you might deem more eloquent articulation or through crass remarks like calling the guy an "idiot" (which is no doubt a careless dick move, but so is Jesus' taking the already existing LA Eastside concept and, basically, performing a kind of digital blog gentrification of it. that's a dick move too.)

anyway I'm totally down with fluidity and all that, but this particular instance of pomo "fluidity" is serving, and being used, not for resistance, but instead, to erase the traditional historical cultural Eastside, as well as the current cultural Eastside. there is indeed a consensus being formed, but it's a hegemonic one that, like most of the "consensus" in this society, really just reflects a very narrow and exclusionary worldview.

maybe that doesn't bother all the "post-Chicanos" who don't mind living on the fluid "post-Eastside," but I don't think it's cool to dismiss the indignation and anger of those who question it, because they are speaking to some deeper issues of coloniality, violence, displacement, and cultural erasure, that are at the heart of gentrification.

[EL CHAVO!]

For the record, only recently did La Brea mean anything to me, now it's a street I have to cross to get to work. Aside from that, it and the region beyond it are not at all within my terrain. Thus I disagree with you that it's a "powerful line", maybe just to some, but not to anyone I know.

But what I want to know is why have you "changed your mind"? What did you discover that somehow throws the identity dice back up in the air? Jesus says that yes, east of the river does have a historical claim to the term (as if that was not enough) but what do you offer as a reason to take the word that defined a region away from us? Is it just that you and he have many friends in the area that use the term? I really want to know, that might help me understand where you and Jesus come from.

As Kualyque points out, the nuanced Eastside you seem to propose is not real, that's not how the concept is being used. The traditional, historical, and current use of the term is being buried by the media types that have more sway over public opinion than the average working eastsider that could care less about blogs. And terms like the "true" or "real" eastside are not good enough, that's like saying we have to call ourselves Mexican-Americans cuz we ain't real americans; it's that OTHER eastside, the mexican barrio one that we avoid.

It's kinda sad to read these new opinions of yours, cuz frankly, you and Jesus should know better. Or at least you need to explain yourselves to people that don't run in your circles.

[Chuy90023]

I think I know the origins of at least part of the resentment that many of us have over the emergence of some new "Eastside" somewhere else. I think it has something to do with ethnic/class differences and our historical experience east of the river in the margins of Los Angeles society.

As teenagers some friends and I thought Silverlake and Echo Park were what everyone referred to as the Westside, just because our families, like many others in Boyle Heights and East LA, had little or no contact with the western parts of the city (and everything beyond Normandie seemed spookily mysterious to us: the Far West, I called it). We were, and to some extent still are, I think, rather insulated, cut off culturally, socially, economically, politically. This might be one reason EastLos has such a strong neighborhood identity. We're just now slowly emerging from this isolation---and it feels weird and scary, I tell you---with the recent introduction of rail and other public investment, private speculation, and such civic events as the marathon (I still can't get over this: the LA marathon now goes through Boyle Heights!!!).

But I'd say another reason for this strong identity is our collective sense of grievance. EastLos, like much of the Eastside, has been largely and criminally neglected by the powers that be. It's like no people lived here. This was just area where immigrant Mexicans and their gang-banging kids lived: a perfect place for freeways, incinerators, and prisons.

This is my impression of how the new "Eastside" appeared on the map: Suddenly, some years ago, as Silverlake began to gentrify, white hipster newcomers, mostly of non-Angeleno origin, realized they were living East from where their friends lived (i.e. the Westside). They also realized that the neighborhoods they were gentrifying--or "improving"--were, in fact, Latino and working class. Thus, they figured, they were on the Eastside--even though they were miles West of downtown--and they proudly announced this to their friends, who would surely admire them for being so daring and adventurous in choosing to live in the unsterile inner-city precincts.

Later, this redefinition of these sections of the city caught on: As Silverlake and Echo Park continued gentrifying, other young urban professionals of various ethnicities and walks of life, but mostly of non-Angeleno origin, have joined in the new, local subculture there that calls the area the Eastside, making us feel once again ignored, scorned, like we don't exist. No arguments about its historical inaccuracy will make a difference.

Who are we to protest? Who listens to us? Nobody has in the past. We don't have money. We don't have fancy jobs and influence. They can take everything from us--as we've seen time and time again. Even our name. And soon, as public investment and private speculation do their thing, they'll "improve" our barrios as well and then take them, pushing us out into the desert.

[FX]

I seem to remember the gavachos talking about ghetto-ization the way the mexican-americans, chicanos and etc talking about gentrification. Pobresito now the mechistas are bitching about the change in demographics they same way the gavachos were complaining years ago.

The east-siders should be complaing to the politicans in power i.e. VillaBabosom Huizar, Reyes, Alarcon and etc about the new gentrification of L.A. hahahahehehehe

I personally don't want all of L.A. to look like Tijuana with tacos, palletas, pirata muisica, elotes sold on every corner. More gavachos equals less basura, cholos y placas.

[FX]

What do the mechistas say when the "real westisders" in Westwood complain about afforable housing units being forced into development projects in the gavacho neighborhoods? What do the mechista say when the gavachos in west-side compalin about the "gentrification" of the schools in the west-side. I am sure some mechista bitch and complain about the gavachos having better schools and opportunities in the gavacho neighborhoods, well the mechistas should embrace the better schools and services that will surely follow the gavachos into the "east-side".

Now that the gentrification is happening in the east-side the rest of the gavcho privalges will surely follow so let's take advantage of the gentrification and quit bitching like a little chavalita. Now you mijo won't have to take a long bus ride to the west-side to get his education in the better gavacho schools, comprendes Mendez?

[nomapsno]

I like the sound of an expansive "eastside" that doesn't exclude East LA and Boyle Heights and Mexicans, Chicanos, and other working class people. How will this be enforced?

That's the real issue. What power do people have to enforce inclusivity, not only geographically, but historically.

The people are having a hard time fighting the casual geographic revisionism going on today. The gentrifiers have on their side, not only the investment capital built from daily discrimination, and also from historical racism, but the self-confidence absorbed from generations of entitlement, and a feeling that it's their social responsibility to be cartographers for their expanse.

When they de-centered the city so the "center" moved towards the westside, at Century City, LA didn't become a city of more than one center. Rather, the old center, the old Downtown, was abandoned, and eventually filled with sweatshops and immigrant stores.

Now, the Downtown is becoming a "downtown" again. Things change, but, it's hardly a fluid, natural process. Richard Riordan, a real estate mogul, used his power to help Tom Gilmore, a real estate mogul, start the process of gentrifying downtown. Capital created downtown, and is re-creating downtown.

Part 2 of the gentrification is happening now -- the clearing out of homeless and immigrants. My friend just got a ticket for jaywalking when she stepped into a crosswalk while the "walk" light was on. The cop told her to go back, and she didn't hear. When she asserted her right-of-way to the cop, he was surprised that she knew English. She was racially profiled.

The map of Iraq has be drawn and redrawn. The society has been de-integrated by violence, segregated by race and religion, divided into racial and religious political categories, and by which people are in the police forces this year.

The problem of fluidity is that freedom of motion (and the freedom to not move) isn't available to everyone. Money and power control.

A search of "map precedes the territory" turned up an interesting paper, linked, about city planning in South Africa. Not surprisingly, it says just what you'd expect about how cities are planned in a country that put people into walled ghettos and called them "townships".

We can all dream about how the map should be, but the territory will be defined by the people with the power to impose their dream-map onto reality.

The small organized resistance at LA Eastside is
organizing a few people, and maybe creating the power that would make this nice sounding, fluid Eastside possible, and avert the theft of the term "eastside" by a wealthier, more powerful people.

[PH]

It's funny how the "fluid" never seem to flow towards the East.

[Daniel H.]

You´re right, nomapsno. Power structures that are as old as the city and recycled through successive gentlemanly agreements between successive politicians and real estate magnates (including our present-day Mexican American Princes) are at the root for the erasures and shiftings that are happening right now in Central LA, the Eastside, and coming up in South-Central. As Chuy points, the core beef is a historical resentment with the way the Eastside has been treated and mistreated for generations. I mean that's really what we're talking about here. I would say, yes, take that grievance to Huizar and Villaraigosa and those cats, as forcefully as you can, because it's THEY who should "know better."

Because this is low-level ballplaying right here. Think about it, would forcing everyone, EVERYONE, to not use the term "Eastside" when referring to Echo Park or Silver Lake (by some magical language police, I guess), somehow stop the flow of gentrification, racism, and institutional violence against working class communities of color? Not likely.

Which gets to an uncomfortable point I think we need to consider. This debate is a debate between equal gentrifiers, who one side are brown and Eastside-centric and sympathetic to the removal of immigrants and brown folks but at the same time invariably complicit in that process -- you can't not be -- and on the other, the clueless no-nothing new-comers. So I don't think, for example CHAVO!, that your lack of understanding or knowledge on La Brea is any more relevant or just or pertinent than the new Westsider's view and lack of knowledge on Soto. You're both aliens.

See what I mean? The exploitation and violence that does happen on our side of town will go on unabated and we could easily name many forms of resistance and counter-action that would be far more effective at easing the shock than debating on blogs what the boundaries of the "Eastside" are and on how those lines should be enforced. In the same respect, I don't think ALL the new Eastsiders are essentially malicious as they display their ignorance when they use the term incorrectly (but again as the post points out, what is really correct??). I believe many people are just ill-informed, but chances are, most people (who are not evil) probably want to be sensitive, engaged members of their communities, wherever they live.

This is why I think "real" Eastsiders would do well to stop being this narrow-minded and self-important about their hood identity and maybe see themselves more broadly as members of an L.A. community and work proactively with other sub-communities and constituencies to produce results that benefit everyone as the unstoppable process of gentrification happens.

As far as as Jesus Sanchez goes I don't know what you mean by "circles" because I barely know Jesus but I know he is a journalist, a Mexican American, an "Eastside" native, and probably a journalistically reasonable person. As a native of the "real" "Eastside," are his views on what the boundaries are, physically or conceptually, any less valid than yours? If so, please, please explain.

Point is, there are other perspectives, which all valid, and there are other venues and strategies for resistance, which are probably more useful.

[FX]

Ay Dios Mio it's funny has hell to read some of these comments, if a gavacho in Echo Park or Silver Lake calls his hood the "East-Side" is be a racist and invalidating generations of mexicans in East Los Angeles? Where do you mensos come up with such bull-shit, your own racism and self-righteousness is exposing your paranoia about the gavachos.

Now let's look at the downtown area.
You are pissed-off because the gavachos abandonded the downtown area and left only the immigrant run stores?
And if the gavachos come back to develop the downtown area and put in gavacho run corporate stores you are also pissed-off?

Some of you need to quit reading so many books from your Chicano studies class and use common logic when you write your xenophobic diatribes.

[D-Nice]

Full disclosure - I am an African/Native-American non Angeleno and 11 year resident of Los Feliz (the fluid/fake ? Eastside).

When I moved to Los Feliz working a minimum wage job, the only place I could afford to live, be near my job and still be live in the city (because yes I had just moved from NYC). Most of my block was Armenian. My building was composed of Mexican, Filipino and Bangladeshi families. I loved the diversity and the ease of being able to walk places ( the ex- NYCer in me) The first time I heard of where I live as being the Eastside was from a Panamanian guy from Inglewood.

"What power do people have to enforce inclusivity, not only geographically, but historically." While I agree that that while cost of gentrification has been high for working class and poor families, I think the problem is more complex than hoards of ignorant gavachos snapping up prim real estate.

Take a look at Watts (South Central in general) was has been long i. Prior to the arrival of Mexican & Spanish settlers, the LA basin was densely inhabited by Native Americans (Tongva, Yanga, Gabriellino) who were used as cheap labor to help build the city. In 1820 the settlers received a land grant and created Rancho La Tajuata for cattle. Eventually, the land subdivided to add more homes and farms and with the arrival railroad came and influx of white people. In 1907 Watts became incorporated, renamed after the land owner and overall big willie Charles Watts and in 1920 Watts was incorporated into LA.

With the rails came the traqueros who helped with construction and then blacks from the South who arrived to Watts as rail workers or pullman. By 1940 Watts was predominantly black as non blacks moved more neighborhoods that reflected their own racial/ ethnic compositions and public housing such as Nickerson Gardens and Jordan Downs were built to house all of the black workers pouring to LA to work for the war industries of WWII.

In 1970 Watts was 90% black, 8% Latino, 2% other. In 2000 the population was 36% black 62% Latino 2% other. Today it's around 30% black, 64% Latino, 3% white, 2% Asian, 2% other concerning some about the loss of the cultural identity as to what it means to be from South Central LA.

This is to suggest perhaps that maybe it's not so much about borders as it is about identity. The immigrants that moved to Watts have kept Watts poor, but stable by replacing the declining black population and investing in homes, filling jobs and starting businesses, just like the blacks replaced the whites and Mexicans who proceeded them. What is missing is a solid middle class that would advocate for better services.

I certainly miss my old neighbors as gentrification has pushed them out of Los Feliz. The lack of affordable housing in LA in general depressing. However drawing exclusionary borders isn't going to help shift resources or help anyone gain any political traction when it seems like the whole town is made or migrants and immigrants.

[vix]

What's all the fuss about? Yer Both right! I'm a 49-year-old native of Silver Lake, and the line of demarcation has always been thought to exist at Western. Anything east of that point is Eastside, bro.
Likewise, Boyle Heights has always represented the axis mundi of the Eastside, like NYC in the center of that NY state of mind.
The purist whiners who feel the need to paper our environs with their nasal anti-elitist proclamations should get their own scene on and start making Boyle Heights so cool that they no longer need to venture out of their zip codes to catch up with the zeitgeist, just like We had to do to distinguish our hood from the vapid valet mess that West Hollywood became 20 years ago. Those newbies have yet to realize that our Elysium has always had cachet, history and mythology. Boyle Heights has some great restaurants, but food alone does not define a hood. Sure Silver Lake is insanely overpriced these days and populated with it's share of insufferable industry Beverly Hills ex-pats, but we got the best views, clubs, galleries, boutiques, restaurants and bars anywhere in the overpriced area code. Gentrification just means the houses are better maintained than 15 years ago, and the arts scene has a constant infusion of financial support from the outlying urban sprawl.
Don't hate Silver Lake because we're beautiful! It took a lot of shampoo and product for us to clean up this nice...

[Leroy Washington]

What do you it when all the latinos move into South Central forcing the blacks to move to San Bernardino and Palmdale?

Is this "good" gentrification? What about the loss of black culture being replaced by latino culture. Where is the concern from the latinos when the blacks lose their culture and now subjected to a latino hegemonic culture.

And what about the blacks who are victims of racist EME controlled cholos, who are the new KKK in Los Angeles. I don't see the outrage from the latinos when blacks are killed by the new latino KKK cholos.

Can you imagine if latinos were subjected to the violence and racism that blacks face from latino streets gangs like the Avenues gang in North East L.A, Harbor Gateway gang and even in suburbs like Monrovia there was over 15 shootings of blacks by latino street gangs in just a few months. Blacks not only lose their culture but their lives and safety.

[Mel]

"This is why I think "real" Eastsiders would do well to stop being this narrow-minded and self-important about their hood identity and maybe see themselves more broadly as members of an L.A. community and work proactively with other sub-communities and constituencies to produce results that benefit everyone as the unstoppable process of gentrification happens."

I couldn't agree more with this statement. Identity accounts for a major part of any given neighborhood. How we are proactive about socioeconomic issues is just as crucial for progess.

[frank]

Kudos to Daniel Hernandez for not deleting cpmments which differ from his own opinion.

The sensitve chavalitas at the EastSide blog erase any comment where I criticize their whining about the gavachos taking over East L.A. the last time I looked the latinos had the political power base and vast majority of residents in most of L.A.

El Chavo has to be the most sensitive paranoid chicano I have encountered, he needs to expand his horizons and drive around the rest of Southern California and see that all gavachos aren't the boogey man.

[browne]

In regards to the Eastside question.

I think we have to be respectful of people. I think the fight for the Eastside is not just about location. Its about LA acknowledging their racism.

Eastside is fluid because non ethnic people want to use the term, that's the problem. If being fluid and open applied to the views of ethnic people there would be no problem.

Lets use Compton Ave as an example, remember how it changed to Marine Ave in the less ethnic side of town? The non ethnic minority people were able to say THIS IS NOT COMPTON, THIS IS NOT SOUTH CENTRAL and not only where they allowed that. They were also allowed to get an official change and everyone was fine with that. No one called them over sensitive or anal, everyone had respect, even though it was based on nothing more than nasty played our racism.

To change the definition of the Eastside is to change history. It says racism didn't exist. It says people of color in LA where always able to live where ever they wanted and that is a lie and when you change the definition on ONLY one side, because of only the view of the people with money, the people who want to market gritty and edgy you disregard and disrespect not just the many Latinos of the Eastside, but the Japanese-Americans who were interned, the African-Americans who were not allowed to buy homes in the vast majority of they city, the second wave of Chinese-Americans who were only able to move to his country after the Civil Rights movement. You disrespect the history of all people of color by playing the name change designated only by one side.

Hey if people were willing to listen to all sides, I'd totally be down and open to change the borders of all kinds of things. I would love that. I would love for everyone and everything to be open. I would love if Obama was recognized by his entire ethnicity as a biracial person, I would love for North America to have open borders, I would love for the LAPD to not profile people owing to their ethnicity, but is LA willing to fight for only those things? I don't think so.

I think this is about marketing and disrespect and covering up the tracks of the nasty business of the LA version of segregation that has been going on since this city was founded.

[Daniel H.]

I think the Watts case is a crucial example of the kind of bottom-to-bottom "gentrification" that is occurring in the new brown-majority Los Angeles. Once again, thinking outside the Eastside box is essential to moving forward. Watts. South Central. Van Nuys. Venice. South Gate. Inglewood. The changes happening in L.A. are all shades of gray.

The main beef once again is really a matter of historical resentment for the poor treatment of Eastside and Eastsiders in the story of L.A. leading up to here. I don't know how to resolve that, except maybe advocating for all to acknowledge that history and work to ensure it never happens again, not to brown people, not to black people, not to anyone.

Thank you all for the comments -- most of which have been submitted in good faith. There are a few personal jabs on here that I do not condone. I respect and admire CHAVO! but on this topic we're disagreeing.

[chimatli]

"Which gets to an uncomfortable point I think we need to consider. This debate is a debate between equal gentrifiers, who one side are brown and Eastside-centric and sympathetic to the removal of immigrants and brown folks but at the same time invariably complicit in that process -- you can't not be -- and on the other, the clueless no-nothing new-comers. So I don't think, for example CHAVO!, that your lack of understanding or knowledge on La Brea is any more relevant or just or pertinent than the new Westsider's view and lack of knowledge on Soto. You're both aliens."

The thing is, it's those newbies and not us, who are given the chance to define the city, time and time again. It is definitely not "equal." If it was, this struggle for keeping our neighborhood name and identity would not exist. Folks who moved to LA would be already familiar with the Eastside. Why would they choose a name for their area that already exists elsewhere?
I think it's unfair the way we're being brushed away like pesky little flies. It's like the folks on the other side of the river have planted down their flags and cannot admit they made a mistake based on their own ignorance. And rather than listen to what we have to say, they just would rather we go away and stop pestering them with facts. As I've written many times before, I have a long family history in this city and I feel it's my responsibility to inform and educate. If other folks want to plug into bureaucratic, government institutions and fight gentrification that way, good for them. As for myself, I have access to a keyboard and an internet connection and a job that doesn't rely on my compliance or conciliatory gestures to those with power.
And you know Daniel, I think it's insulting that you would label us with the term Eastside-centric, like we are a bunch of EastLos hicks or something. That's totally unfair. You know from reading our blogs that we come from diverse backgrounds. Also, the barbs like "narrow-minded" and "self important" are ones that have not gone unnoticed. Dude, if I don't think my voice is important, who will?
The interesting thing is, if another group did take over the Eastside and then decided to rename it or incorporate it into a larger neighborhood of their culture that would be one thing. But the fact is, there is still a large group of people with geographic ties and identities to the Eastide who are still there and have no idea (because they are not plugged into the various media sources) that a whole another group of people have taken their name. It's like they don't exist. Vix's comments are a good example:
"Boyle Heights has some great restaurants, but food alone does not define a hood."
See what I mean? It's like "oh there are people there? I only notice the restaurants."
And you wonder why we struggle?

[EL CHAVO!]

DH,
I don't mind disagreeing but you've yet to explain why you suddenly "changed your mind", basically telling us to just get over it. Neither you nor Jesus Sanchez can come up with a minimal reason why the way I use the term no longer applies, you just reference the "debate", some wishy-washy fluidity, and "change is constant." Give us something a little more substantial, no?

This might be "low-level ballplaying" (might I remind you this post is also a pitch) but some of us don't pretend or want to be part of upper level games.

[Daniel H.]

Like I said, CHAVO, I think it's turned into a moot and tired debate, and more a matter of badges and identity for people who want to maintain an idea that no longer applies considering the changes L.A. is facing, for better or worse. And after I read some of the history of the shifting poles, again, like I said above, I just think people need to adapt and play ball with more pressing issues.

[EL CHAVO!]

No. It's not that easy. I'll leave the pressing issues to you, but I'm not adapting to some new order nobody is willing to explain to me. You've decided the poles have shifted, just like that. That's not a "debate."

[frank]

El Chavo,
At least Daniel H. has the huevos not to erase any comments which oppose his own views. El Chavo (sin Huevos Rancheros) has erased any comment in which I point out the racism and hypocrisy of his views on his EastSide blog. What if the blacks spoke about the cultural change which is happening in South Central as much as the mechistas scream about their perceived cultural change in the real East-Side?

Blacks have lost whole neighborhoods due to latino gentrification and have even been forced to move to the desert by fear and violence. Blacks have even been killed by EME controlled cholos, but that is not a concern of the mechistas from the EastSide. But if a few upper-middle class move into the barrio El Chavo whines and whines instead of welcoming the diversity..

[Browne]

Frank and Leroy,

I know we are not trying to turn this into some black and brown silliness. Black people in LA neighborhoods disappeared, because in general once black people got some money they moved out of the neighborhood.

Almost all of my African-American friends who were raised in LA, went on to college and then moved on to become successes moved to the West LA or Downtown.

I used to go Leimert Park for art events and though there was many choices the middle class black people could have chose to have their post art dinners and get togethers in South LA, more often than not they decided to go into West LA and to the white section of town.

The part of black LA that is invested in the community is fine and will be fine. Leimert Park and the community will be fine. Watts and that community will be fine. Compton and that community will be fine, but the part of black LA that bussed their kids to the white section of town so that their kids could STILL be segregated and moved out the neighborhood and shopped outside the neighborhood, well someone else took it. That is not Latino people's fault.

If you leave a toy in the park someone is going to pick it up and you can't be mad, because you just left if there.

And I'm going to bet you are not black are you Frank? I'm going to bet all of the people on this blog claiming to be black and spouting out this black and brown hate nonsense are not black, because I am black and people in the blogosphere have seen me and in general your comments by the so-called self-identified black people sound like separatist minuteman comments and not something I am hearing on the black blogosphere.

Leroy Washington?!!! Are you freakin' serious!!! Ain't no one named Leroy Washington reading Daniel Hernandez's blog. What you couldn't spell Tyrone. You are some BS and you're not black. This is why at times I hate the internet.

Browne

[frank]

I wonder if Jamiel Shaw Sr. would agree with all of Browne's ridiculos comments. Do a little reading about how many black were shot and killed in Monrovia, Ca. by mexican street gangs in the span of a few months.

Many blacks are targetd by mexican street gangs do some reading before commenting, google Avenues gang. Why do so few blacks live in N.E. Los Angeles?

[Pez]

The East-side romanticized, why? The East-side with certain defined borders will mean vastly different things to a resident Chicano than to a new Mexican immigrant. I strongly dislike neighborhood pride as much as nationalism but I think one should take pride in striving for better things with whatever one has; taking care of the space that one occupies, lives in and walks/drives through. The East-side's problems can't only be the fault of the City's power brokers and White folks - though they share in large part of the responsibility, what about the inhabitants?

nway, I've been influenced by my environment but I'm not a product of it. The new immigrants, the old school Chicanos, the new school Chicanos, the East side, are groups/areas that I can't relate to, my main influences are the few positive aspects of technology and globalization.

[frank]

Pez writes............
"The East-side's problems can't only be the fault of the City's power brokers and White folks - though they share in large part of the responsibility, what about the inhabitants?"

*************************

It's so much easier to blame the whites for all our problems. I grew up in the 60's when there was much more racism and less opportunities for latinos but still managed to avoid being held down by the "MAN". Many don't like what much of the EastSide looks like. I personally don't like illegal street vendors on every corner and graffiti on every blank wall and I don't fear whitey. But El Chavo is a coffee shop revolutinary who hangs on to the EastSide varrio like a cholo protecting his varrio.

You should post your comment over at http://laeastside.com/ but El Chavo will probably delete it since he is to sensitive to take any criticism of his narrow minded and racist views. El Chavo should open his eyes and see that latinos are the majority and if we have an enemy it might just be and those who wish to wallow in self-pity.