Puerto Rico's 79Th Municipality?: Identity, Hybridity and Transnationalism Within the Puerto Rican Diaspora in Orlando, Florida Luis Sa#Nchez

Home , Dutch Americans, En mi Viejo San Juan, List of French Americans, List of Irish Americans, Nuyorican, Puerto Ricans

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2008 Puerto Rico's 79th Municipality?: Identity, Hybridity and Transnationalism within the Puerto Rican Diaspora in Orlando, Florida Luis Sa#nchez

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] FLORIDA STATE UNIVERISTY

COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

PUERTO RICO’S 79TH MUNICIPALITY?:

IDENTITY, HYBRIDITY AND TRANSNATIONALISM WITHIN THE

PUERTO RICAN DIASPORA IN ORLANDO, FLORIDA

LUIS SÁNCHEZ

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Geography in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded: Summer Semester, 2008

The members of the Committee approve the dissertation of Luis Sánchez defended on June 4, 2008.

______Jonathan I. Leib Professor Directing Dissertation

______Santa Arias Outside Committee Member

______Barney Warf Committee Member

______Janet E. Kodras Committee Member

Approved:

______Victor Mesev, Chair, Department of Geography

______David Rasmussen, Dean, College of Social Sciences

The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

In Spanish there is an old phrase of wisdom that says, “Honor a quién honor merece”. To honor those words of wisdom, I would like to thank my advisor Dr. Jonathan Leib for his guidance, inspiration, and encouragement. This dissertation would have not been possible without his assistance and support. But most of all, I am greatly thankful for his dedication, patience, and understanding. Also, special thanks to Dr. Barney Warf, Dr. Santa Arias, and Dr. Janet Kodras for their reviews and help. My gratitude goes to them.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ...... vi List of Figure ...... vii Abstract ...... viii

HERE, THERE, OR IN-BETWEEN? ...... 1 Chapter Outline ...... 6

BECOMING US ON THE MOVE ...... 8

Identity in the Making ...... 9 Migration and Diasporic Identities ...... 15 Transnationalism and Hybridity ...... 20 Conclusion ...... 25

METHODOLOGY ...... 27

Methods of Data Gathering ...... 28 Analysis and Reflections ...... 35

PUERTO RICO – UNITED STATES RELATIONS ...... 39

Historical Overview ...... 40 The Status Dilemma ...... 45 Debate in the United States ...... 50 Conclusion ...... 53

PUERTO RICAN MIGRATION TO THE U.S...... 54

First Immigration Wave ...... 55 Second Immigration Wave ...... 58 Third Immigration Wave ...... 60 Conclusion ...... 69

IDENTIFYING PUERTO RICANNESS ...... 70

Puerto Ricanness ...... 71 Language ...... 78 Island-born versus Mainland-born ...... 83 Conclusion ...... 89

iv THE ORLANDORICANS ...... 92 The Orlandoricans ...... 92 Building the Community ...... 96 A Hybrid Community ...... 102 Conclusions ...... 107

IDENTITY CONSTRUCTION SITES ...... 109

Puerto Rican Spaces ...... 110 Social Institutions ...... 114 The Puerto Rican Day Parade of Orlando ...... 120 Conclusions ...... 125

CONCLUSIONS ...... 127

APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ...... 140

APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 142

APPENDIX C: LIST OF CODES ...... 146

APPENDIX D: ATLAS.TI SOFTWARE ...... 147

APPENDIX E: SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS ...... 148

APPENDIX F: CAMPAING IN DEFENSE OF THE SPANISH LANGUAGE, UNIVERSIDAD DEL SAGRADO CORAZON ...... 151

APPENDIX G: EN MI VIEJO SAN JUAN BY NOEL ESTRADA ...... 154

APPENDIX H: PASEO BORICUA, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS ...... 155

APPENDIX I: APPROVAL MEMORANDUM FROM THE HUMAN SUBJECTS COMMETTEE ...... 157

APPENDIX J: INFORMED CONSENT FORM ...... 159

REFERENCES ...... 161

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 175

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Puerto Rican Population in Selected States ...... 28

Table 2. List of Interviewees ...... 30

Table 3. Status Referendums Results ...... 46

Table 4. Electoral Participation ...... 47

Table 5. Puerto Rican Population in the Island and the United States ...... 54

Table 6. Net Emigration from Puerto Rico ...... 56

Table 7. Return Migrants to Puerto Rico ...... 59

Table 8. Puerto Rican Population in Selected States, year 2006 ...... 63

Table 9. 2006 Hispanic Population in Counties Within the Orlando Metro Area ...... 64

Table 10. Cost of Living Index ...... 67

Table 11. Florida’s Puerto Rican Population in Selected Counties ...... 68

Table 12. Percentage of Puerto Rican Population in Selected Counties ...... 68

Table 13. Race in Metropolitan Orlando, Florida ...... 93

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Orlando Metropolitan Area of Florida ...... 5

Figure 2. Status Referendums ...... 49

Figure 3. General Elections Results ...... 50

Figure 4. Growth of Florida’s Puerto Ricans, 1960-2006 ...... 63

Figure 5. Important Elements to be Puerto Rican ...... 75

Figure 6. Language in Metro-Orlando ...... 82

Figure 7. Differences between Island-born and Mainland-born Puerto Ricans ...... 89

Figure 8. Puerto Rican Enclaves in Metro-Orlando ...... 101

Figure 9. Puerto Ricanness and Americanization in Metro-Orlando ...... 106

Figure 10. Puerto Rican Symbols in Metro-Orlando ...... 112

Figure 11. Puerto Rican Businesses ...... 112

Figure 12. Puerto Rican Church ...... 116

Figure 13. Asociación Borinqueña de Florida Central ...... 118

Figure 14. La Casa de Puerto Rico ...... 119

Figure 15. The Puerto Rican Day Parade of Orlando ...... 122

vii

ABSTRACT

The question of who is Puerto Rican is constantly raised in Puerto Rico as much as within the diaspora. Historically, the Puerto Rican diaspora has concentrated in New York, New Jersey, and other northeastern and midwestern states. Outside of Puerto Rico, Florida now has the second largest concentration of Puerto Ricans in the U.S. The formation of a Puerto Rican diaspora in Metro-Orlando is not similar to the well- established Puerto Rican diaspora elsewhere in the United States. I argue that Puerto Rican identities are not homogenous across spaces and within places. Therefore, Puerto Ricans have lived and experienced different spatial contexts, resulting in different notions of Puerto Ricanness that are sensitive to such spatial variations. Consequently, as a greater number of Puerto Ricans are migrating to Metro-Orlando permanently, making Central Florida their home, terms like “island-born Puerto Rican” and “mainland-born Puerto Rican” or “Nuyorican” are been highly contested and used as the main means to define affiliation. Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando are constructing a “new” Puerto Rico. They do not see themselves as equal or as part of the larger Puerto Rican diaspora in the United States. Nor do they hold onto the myth of return that other Puerto Rican communities on the mainland have retained. Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando are building an identity based on what they think it means to be from the island but distinctive from the rest of the Puerto Rican diaspora on the mainland. At the same time, they are themselves developing some cultural distinctions with Puerto Rico that, according to their own notions of Puerto Ricanness, are increasingly making them more “Nuyoricans” than “Puerto Ricans”. These differences are tied to the new spatial experiences of Metro- Orlando, and are creating new notions of Puerto Ricanness that perhaps will result in a new label to represent Puerto Ricans in this new place: the “Orlandoricans”.

viii

CHAPTER I

HERE, THERE, OR IN-BETWENN?

Puerto Rico, an island in the Caribbean that is internally divided into 78 political subdivision called municipalities and a territory of the United States whose culture, language and historical background are dramatically different from that of the U.S., is a “domestic foreign” that suggests a differentiation between the island and the mainland. However, the question of who is Puerto Rican is constantly raised in Puerto Rico as much as within the mainland diaspora. This issue indicates that the processes of Puerto Rican identity construction reach beyond the island’s boundaries. The distinctive element in the Puerto Rican case is the sheer magnitude of its diaspora (Duany 2002: 13). According to the U.S. Census Bureau, by 2003 almost half (48.9 percent) of all persons of Puerto Rican origin were living outside of Puerto Rico. In 2006 there were 3,987,947 Puerto Ricans living in the United States and 3,927,776 in the island1. As a result of this large- scale migration, Puerto Rico became a divided nation (Whalen 2005) split between the island and the mainland. Historically, the Puerto Rican diaspora has been concentrated in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, and other northeastern and midwestern states. However, more recently these patterns have been changing. Regardless of the fact that New York still has the largest percentage of Puerto Rican residents in the U.S., the proportion of Puerto Ricans has significantly increased in states such as Florida, Texas, and California. However, the case of Florida stands out from the others. The growth of Florida’s Puerto Rican population has been spectacular, from slightly more than two percent of all stateside Puerto Ricans in 1960 to more than 14 percent by 2000 (Duany and Matos-Rodríguez 2006: 24). Florida has already displaced New Jersey as the second largest concentration of Puerto Ricans in the United States.

1 Source: U.S. Census Bureau

1 According to the U.S. Census, Puerto Ricans now represent the second largest group of Hispanics in Florida, after Cubans, and the largest in Central Florida, particularly in the Orlando metropolitan area. In the Orlando metropolitan area, Puerto Ricans represent a large range of all Hispanics. Between 1990 and 2000, the city of Orlando experienced the largest increase (142 percent) in the number of Puerto Ricans stateside (Falcón 2004: 6). Today, Orlando is the fourth-largest metropolitan area for Puerto Ricans in the United States, after such well-established centers of the diaspora as New York City, Philadelphia, and Chicago (Duany and Matos-Rodríguez 2006: 26). However, the formation of a Puerto Rican diaspora in Metro-Orlando is not similar to the well-established Puerto Rican diaspora elsewhere in the United States. The elements aiding the processes of identity formation for Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando are different from those in the well-established centers of the Puerto Rico diaspora. Puerto Rican communities in Metro-Orlando differ significantly from their counterparts in other major U.S. cities not only in their historical origins and settlement patterns, but also in their mode of economic, political and cultural incorporation (Duany and Matos- Rodríguez 2006: 28). Puerto Rican identity in the United States is different from that of the island. Puerto Ricans living in the United States, in the same way as the majority of migrants, are forced to define themselves in relation to the dominant norms in the U.S. (Daniel 2000: 13). These Puerto Ricans in the U.S., as opposed to their island-born counterparts, have increasingly redefined their identities in non-territorial and non-linguistic terms, including national origin, family background, cultural practices, and emotional ties (Duany and Matos-Rodríguez 2006: 50). Puerto Ricans in the United States are engaged in an identity-building process that heavily depends on the landscape to produce and reproduce their Puerto Ricanness. In that regard, processes of Puerto Rican identity-building are highly influenced by spatial phenomena. As Schein (1997: 660) argues, the landscape can be seen as symbolic, as representative, and as a representation (e.g., Cosgrove and Daniels 1988; Duncan and Ley 1993; Schein 1993); as duplicitous (e.g., Daniels 1989); and as gendered, class-based, politicized, and central to the (re)production of social life (e.g., Duncan 1990; Mitchell 1994; Anderson and Gale 1992; Zukin 1991). Landscapes are texts, as metaphors, and as

2 part of discourses (Schein 1997: 661). They serve to legitimate and enable the construction of a Puerto Rican identity in both Puerto Rico and the United States. The making of Puerto Ricanness has taken place in the processes of landscape representation and interpretation. Therefore, the spatial context is relevant in the examination of the Puerto Rican identity making process. The debate over Puerto Ricans’ identity was extended further by a report released by the White House in December 2005 through a presidential task force on Puerto Rico’s status. This report formally recognized for the first time that the current political arrangement of Puerto Rico is territorial and colonial. However, the significance of the report resides on the recommendations it makes to Congress in terms of the steps they should follow to set in motion a process of self-determination leading to the full decolonization of Puerto Rico. One of those recommendations, perhaps the most controversial, is to hold another status referendum in the island. According to the White House report, such a referendum must be initiated in Congress and offer only two options, statehood or independence, as the final and permanent solution of Puerto Rico’s status situation. Such a Congressional referendum, with the options that the United States is “willing” to offer, represents a formal statement of the United States’ position regarding the case of Puerto Rico and the nearly eight million Puerto Ricans who live both on the Island and within the United States. In that regard, the discussions taking place in the U.S. Congress over Puerto Rico’s political situation are important. These discussions, besides dealing with the issue of defining the Island’s political future, have been broadened to include issues of Puerto Rican identity. Debates about whether Puerto Ricans living in the United States should be included in any consideration regarding the final decision about the island are increasingly dominating the Congressional discourse. The controversy centers on who would be considered as Puerto Rican in order to participate in any potential status referendum. This Congressional debate could put in motion another process of identity construction for Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico, but more importantly, those in the United States. The question of whether Puerto Ricans living in the United States should be included in any consideration regarding the final decision about the island has a second

3 implication. The question is how will Congress decide who is Puerto Rican, or what makes someone Puerto Rican. In that regard and as part of the current Congressional debate, Congressman José Serrano from New York (born in Puerto Rico) has argued that all persons who were born on the island should participate in any potential mechanism to solve Puerto Rico’s status issue. On the other hand, Congressman Luis Gutiérrez from Chicago (born in the United States, first generation of Puerto Rican immigrants) argued that all persons of Puerto Rican descent should be included in any decision regarding the political future of Puerto Rico. The purpose of this research is to closely examine the processes of Puerto Rican identity construction in the Orlando metropolitan area of Florida (Figure 1). The central questions that I seek to answer are: 1) How is the Metro-Orlando diaspora being formed by both island-born and mainland-born Puerto Ricans? and 2) How does the interaction between them in a new setting affect the process of making Puerto Ricanness? In short, who can claim to be a Puerto Rican and how can that claim be legitimated culturally and politically? Although there exist numerous studies on Puerto Rican migration, diaspora, and identity in the United States (e.g., Novak 1956; Kernstock 1980; Alers-Montalvo 1985; Fitzpatrick 1987; Padilla 1987; Rodríguez 1989; Flores1993; Grosfoguel, Negrón- Muntaner, and Georas 1997; Cruz 1998; Velázquez 1998; Daniel 2000; Landale, Oropesa, and Gorman 2000; Pérez 2000; Duany 2002; Falcón 2004; Anselmo and Rubal- López 2005; Whalen 2005; Acosta-Belén, and Santiago 2006; Duany and Matos- Rodríguez 2006; Sánchez 2007), these studies overlook the spatiality of identity and are centered on the cases of the well-established Puerto Rican centers as New York City, Philadelphia, and Chicago. On the other hand, the studies focusing on the case of Florida are limited and their consideration of the elements aiding the processes of identity formation for Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando has been less well explored. For Puerto Ricans, these processes not only involve issues of identity construction, migration, and diaspora formation, but also involve the negotiation and renegotiation of different perceptions of Puerto Ricanness as well. The fact that the Metro-Orlando diaspora is being formed by island-born and mainland-born Puerto Ricans makes it essential to consider issues of transnationalism and hybridity, or multi-hybrid

4 identities. Therefore, this research examines concepts of identity formation, migration, diasporas, transnationalism, and hybrid identities.

Figure 1: Orlando Metropolitan Area of Florida

I build on this body of theory by emphasizing the spatiality of identity in the case of the Metro-Orlando’s Puerto Rican diaspora. I show how issues of identity are influenced by landscape representation and interpretation, through the Orlando Puerto Rican Parade and other public festivals where Puerto Ricanness is been discussed, negotiated, and shaped. I contend that understanding these issues at the theoretical level will affect our ability to understand how the Metro-Orlando diaspora is being formed. Likewise, this work examines the historical political relations between Puerto Rico and the United States. It also analyzes the emigration movements between the island

5 and the mainland, and the formation of the Puerto Rican diaspora, giving close attention to the current migratory movements to Florida from the island and elsewhere in the United States.

Outline of Chapters This study consists of nine chapters. This first chapter provides an introduction to the dissertation, the second presents a review of literature on migration, diasporas, transnationalism and hybridity, all related to the concept of identity. Here the spatiality of identity is discussed and explored. This chapter also discuss different approaches to identity, such as assimilationist, primordial, and the constructionist approaches. The third chapter describes the methodology employed in this study to address the main research questions, including data collection processes, the techniques used, and analysis of the strategies applied during the course of the study. The data were acquired through a combination of in-depth interviews, questionnaires, document analysis, and fieldwork conducted in the Orlando metropolitan area in the Fall of 2007. I conducted in- depth interviews with political leaders, community leaders, religious leaders, and business owners within the Puerto Rican community in Metro-Orlando. The questionnaires were administered to “general Puerto Ricans” within the Orlando metropolitan area. This structured questionnaire was used to gather data on collective behavior to understand how Puerto Ricans in Orlando are making sense of themselves and how space has been used to produce and reproduce Puerto Ricanness. Document analysis consisted of the review of publications and documents such as newspapers, similar studies, census data, archive material, and audiovisual material related to my research. Finally, participant and/or site observation was used through the analysis of public displays of the Puerto Rican community, specifically the Orlando Puerto Rican Parade and other Puerto Rican festivals in Metro-Orlando. Predominantly qualitative research methods are used to analyze the data by building several broad themes of analysis used to address the research questions. In the final part of the methodology chapter, I provide an analysis of the techniques I used and the pitfalls I faced while conducting this research.

6 The fourth chapter examines the history of United States-Puerto Rico political relations. This chapter provides a portrait of how the processes of Puerto Rican identity construction reach beyond the island’s boundaries. Debates taking place in the United States regarding Puerto Rico-United States relations are charged with issues involving the negotiation and renegotiation of different perceptions of Puerto Ricanness. This relation can put in motion processes of identity construction for Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico, but more importantly, for those in the United States. The fifth chapter presents a portrait of the immigration waves and patterns of Puerto Rican immigration history to the United States, and provides statistics about the number and distribution of Puerto Ricans in the United States. This chapter also examines the case of Florida’s Puerto Rican migration, specifically to the Orlando metropolitan area. The sixth chapter examines how Puerto Ricanness is being constructed by the Puerto Rican community of Metro-Orlando, and how different perceptions of Puerto Ricanness are negotiated and renegotiated. It also explores identity negotiations that individual Puerto Ricans face in their everyday lives and spaces in the context of Metro- Orlando. This chapter provides multiple views of Puerto Ricanness using “voices” from my interviewees. The seventh chapter looks at the multiplicity and complexity of Puerto Ricanness and the meanings individual Puerto Ricans make of that multiplicity and complexity. This chapter presents a deeper understanding of competing Puerto Rican identities. It aims to provide a better understanding of the politics of Puerto Rican identities in the Orlando metropolitan area. The eighth chapter explores how issues of identity are influenced by landscape representation and interpretation, through the Orlando Puerto Rican Parade and other public festivals/displays, residential space and Puerto Rican organizations, where Puerto Ricanness is been discussed, negotiated, and shaped. Each of these spaces is analyzed in terms of their role in shaping Puerto Ricanness. The importance of place in construction of identities is highlighted and place-making tactics are examined. The final chapter summarizes and analyzes the key findings of this study.

CHAPTER II

BECOMING US ON THE MOVE

The concept of identity is a highly contested one. There is a universe of definitions and interpretations on what identity is and what this concept entails. For scholars, identity is a concept that has been and continues to be of much interest. One common ground scholars have agreed upon is that identity refers to how we make sense of ourselves (Martin 2005; Castells 1997; Pile and Thrift 1995; Gregory 1994; Said 1978). In order to construct identities, it is necessary to establish opposites such as “us versus them” (Gregory 1995; Pile and Thrift 1995; Said 1978). One of the most powerful ways to construct an identity is by identifying against (Cornell and Hartmann 1998). First define the “other” and then we define ourselves as “not the other”, the opposite or what the other is not. But in the same way we define “others”, they may also define us, and their definition may not match our own selfidentity. Therefore, identities are made, but by interaction between circumstantial or human assignment on the one hand and assertion on the other (Burke 1980; Thoits 1991; Cornell and Hartmann 1998). These differences are central for the processes of identity production and reproduction. As a result, we have multiple identities as our differences are manifested in various forms within our daily lives. While Puerto Rican identities are based on language, race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, gender, class, nationalism, they are predominantly based on place of origin. They are characterized by hybridity and complexity. Puerto Rican identities not only differentiate them from labels like “American” but also from “Hispanic/Latino” groups from elsewhere in Latin America. In addition, Puerto Ricans themselves come from different backgrounds as the terms like “island-born Puerto Rican” and “mainland-born Puerto Rican” or “Nuyorican” are still highly contested and used as the main means to define affiliation. Puerto Ricans born in the mainland U.S. may be Puerto Ricans, Nuyoricans, Orlandoricans, Diasporicans, etc., depending on place. This chapter provides a review of literature on migration, diasporas, transnationalism and hybridity, all related

8 to the concept of identity. The spatiality of identity is discussed and explored. I also discuss different approaches to identity, such as assimilationist, primordial, and the constructionist approaches. I begin by addressing the concept of identity. I discuss its general theoretical underpinnings that have long been at the center of debates not only within geography, but in an interdisciplinary academic universe as well. In order to gain an understanding of identity formation and preservation we need to understand what people understand by identity and how that understanding is spatially materialized. This discussion will help us comprehend the theoretical context in which Puerto Ricanness is being currently produced and reproduced. The next section addresses the relationship between identity, migration, and diasporas. First, I examine how migrants make sense of themselves in the new setting of the host country. Second, I discuss how these migrants came to construct diasporic identities, and how place and landscape aid such processes. Human societies have made sense of their positionality in different ways at different times. People crossing transnational borders do not always construct their identities in the same way, and not all migrant groups behave in the same way and/or construct a broader diasporic identity. Therefore, in the final section of the chapter I discuss the concepts of transnationalism and hybridity. In this context, the emergence of transnational and hybrid identities introduces additional complexity to the debate on identity formation.

Identity in the Making Identity implies an undifferentiated unity or sameness, one that constitutes the essential being of an entity (Martin 2005: 97). Geographers have given serious attention to the exploration of human self-consciousness since humanistic geography and phenomenology gave an ethical and moral turn to the discipline. This movement alerted geographers to the importance of place in the human experience, and consequently to the notion of identity. Each individual potentially experiences a unique understanding of his or her surroundings, and this understanding is shaped by mental processes of information gathering and organization that make self-consciousness (Gold 1980). Geographers such as Peet (1998) argued that the spatiality of everyday life generates fundamental self-

9 consciousness. This movement generated a more adequate view of the human experience and how people perceive things, understand their position in the world, and make sense of themselves. Consequently, identity is a source of meaning and experience (Castells 1997: 6). But these processes of consciousness formation are far from being simple; they are as dynamic as they are complex. In the construction of identities, place in human experience is as important as the categories and labels that “others” give in an attempt to demarcate and define group boundaries. In that sense, the idea of stable identity is replaced by a perspective of an identity with multiplicity of difference, contradiction, fluidity, contextuality, and dynamism (Pile and Thrift 1995). Identities are made through the interactions between assignment on the one hand as well as assertion on the other (Burke 1980; Thoits 1991; Cornell and Hartmann 1998). They are changeable, contingent, and diverse. In this context, Cornell and Hartmann (1998: 195) argued that “preexisting identities, population size, internal differentiations, social capital, human capital, symbolic repertories, and group context and agendas also have implications for identity construction.” These changeable, contingent, and diverse identities are part of a structured society and exist only in relation to other contrasting categories. Therefore, identities are socially constructed. Our self-consciousness is constructed through structural processes rather than being innate or pre-given (Bondi 1993: 86). This construction gives meaning to identities on the basis of cultural attributes. Identity is a product, and at the same time, the producer of social processes; it is always an incomplete process. Accordingly, Keith and Pile (1993: 28) suggest that “identity formation is endless because it is based on a moment of arbitrary closure which in the same fashion is both true and false simultaneously.” The categorization and labeling that “outsiders” give to demarcate and define groups’ boundaries are part of those processes. The construction of identity involves establishing opposites and others and it takes place as a contest involving individuals and institutions in all societies (Gregory 1995: 456). However, there are many interpretations of how these processes work.

10 There are three major approaches to the questions of the formation of identities: primordialism, circumstantialism, and constructionist. Each proposes a different interpretation of the identity construction process. Primordialism is based on the idea that identity is fixed, fundamental, and rooted in the unchangeable circumstances of birth (Cornell and Hartmann 1998: 48). Isaacs (1975) called it the basic group identity. These identities consist of the already-made set of endowments and identifications that every individual shares with others from the moment of birth by the chance of family into which he/she is born at that given time in that given place (Isaacs 1975: 38). According to the primordialists, identities are natural and predetermined. What determines identity is the physical body, the person’s name, the history and origins of the group one is born into, the group nationality and other affiliations, the language one first learn to speak, the religion and culture one is born into, and the geography and topography of the place of birth (Isaacs 1975). Based on these criteria, identity is something beyond the individual’s control. On the other hand, the circumstantialist approach sees identities as interest groups. In this regard, the utility of identity is altered according to circumstances. Therefore, it is not the deep roots of primordialist factors that count, but their practical uses (Cornell and Hartmann 1998: 56). The focus of this approach is the circumstances and contexts in which people perceive they are located. Circumstantialism thus is based on people’s ties of interest. Following this line, Glazer and Moynihan (1970) challenged the idea, prevalent in primordialism, that groups are held together by shared cultural practices that lay at the core of their identities. Similarly, Cohen (1974) believed that identities are fundamentally a political phenomenon. Therefore identity in the modern world is the result of intensive struggle between groups over strategic positions of power, places of employment, taxation, funds for development, education, political positions, and so on (Cohen 1974: 96). Contrary to primordialism, circumstantialists do not believe in predetermination. In that sense, identities can change and changes respond to circumstances. Any given person can choose his/her identity depending on the predominant circumstances at a given time and place. Individuals and groups have the power to emphasize or ignore their own identities when such identities are in some way advantageous or disadvantageous to

11 them. In that regard, identity is a potential resource or handicap; it has potential benefits and potential costs (Cornell and Hartmann 1998: 57). Finally, the constructionist approach combines primordialism and circumstantialism to develop a stronger and more complete argument. However, the constructionist approach challenges any essentialist view of categories because it is the way these ideas have been used to legitimized human action that grant advantages to some categories over others (Jackson and Penrose 1993: 2). According to this approach, there is nothing absolute about the processes or the end product. This approach focuses on the ways identities are built and dismantled over time. Circumstances and primordialist factors are a part of it, but adding to them are the contributions groups make to create and shape their own identities. Therefore, identities are changeable, contingent, and diverse (Cornell and Hartmann 1998: 73). Identities are made, but by interaction between circumstantial or human assignment on the one hand and assertion on the other. O’Brian (1990) describes identity as a reciprocal function that not only is continually changing, but these changes occur at the intersections of the claims we makes about ourselves and the claims others make about us. Therefore, there are variations in the process of making identities. Identities are not simply labels forced upon people; they are also labels that people actively accept, resist, choose, specify, invent, redefine, reject, defend, and so forth (Cornell and Hartmann 1998: 77). Identities can be differentiated as assigned or asserted, and thick or thin. Analyzed in this way, construction involves both the passive experience of being made by external forces, including not only material circumstances but the claims that other persons or groups make about the groups in question, but also the active process by which the group makes itself (Cornell and Hartmann 1998: 80). This perspective suggests that far from being natural, identities are socially constructed. Here, processes of power relations are very much at play. Identities are the results of particular arrangements of power, whether it is individual and institutional, or imaginative and material (Massey 1995). As Kaya (2003: 9) argued, “at the heart of identity politics is difference, power, and change”. Self-consciousness is inherently a claim for the power to depict group boundaries, a claim for rights to establish individual and group roles to portray “their” undifferentiated unity. Consequently, differences

12 provide the basis for identity claims as groups envision a change in the existing power structure for their advantage while those in power resist such change (Soja and Hooper 1993). Those who occupy positions of power often have the authority to define knowledge. The ways in which people make sense of their lives is a necessary starting point for understanding how power relations structure society (Keith and Pile 1993: 95). The power to decide provides the means to promote and institutionalize particular ways, forms, and norms in society. These practices embody the relations between those with the power to control how people see and interpret and the powerless. It is at this stage where identities are being contested, negotiated, produced, and reproduced. This line of thought introduced space as an element in understanding identities. The making of identities can be understood by looking at the different socially constructed sites and their contextual meanings. In that regard, identities occur within sites, which implies spaces of interaction at many levels. It is also important to note that people do not enter identity construction sites empty handed or empty-headed (Cornell and Hartmann 1998: 195). Rather the making of identities is the result of interactions between those socially constructed sites and what individuals and groups bring with them. Likewise, landscapes are similarly important in the construction of social memory and therefore identity (Johnson 2004: 324). Memory as recollection, remembering, and representation is crucial in the mapping of significant historical moments and in the articulation of personal identity (Johnson 2004: 317). These collective memories are ways in which society maintains its communal identity over time. As Johnson (2004: 318) suggested, “the role of remembering the past, the putting together of its constituent parts into a single, coherent narrative has been profoundly significant for the emergence of a popular nationalist identity”. The landscape serves as a text that is read and actively affects and influence people’s collective memory. Through its symbolic qualities, the cultural landscape serves to naturalize or concretize social relations (Schein 2003: 203). Mitchell (2000: 102) argues that “the landscape in the sense of a text that is read provides a context, a stage, within and upon which humans continue to work, and it provides the boundaries within which people remake themselves”. People do not just see the space, they read it and

13 interpret what is in it. Building on similar ground, Lewis, Lowenthal, and Tuan (1973) sees the human landscape as our unwitting autobiography, reflecting our lives, our values and aspiration, in tangible, visible form. The human landscape and its symbolic contents play a central role in people’s lives. Landscape imagery shows highly ideological and political messages that are often written onto, and read from, specific landscapes, with notions of spectacle iconography and symbolism central in many enculturated accounts of the urban and rural (Mills 1993; Mordue 1999). These landscapes are also used for group orientation, communication, and interaction (Lewis, Lowenthal, and Tuan 1973). This phenomenon makes landscapes central to the ongoing production and reproduction of identities. However, the landscape not just a mirror of society, it is constructed and serves to naturalize, make normal, or provide the means to promote and institutionalized particular ways, forms, and norms in society. Landscape representation and interpretation, and collective memory are interrelated to the processes of identity construction. Shared remembrances help identify a group, giving it sense of its past and defining its aspirations for the future (Hoelscher 2003: 660). In this sense, Agnew (2005: 3) argued that “memories establish a connection between our individual past and our collective past”. These memories explain how we came to be ourselves and to inhabit what we call our homes. Similarly, collective amnesia allows landscapes to act as a powerful ideological tool. The landscape becomes part of the everyday, the taken for granted; masking the artifice and ideological nature of its form and content (Peet 1998: 234). Thus, the physical forms how these remembrances and amnesia are materialized on the landscape are as important as their intended meanings. Social memory is a way in which a social group can maintain its communal identity over time and it is through the social group that individuals recall these memories (Johnson 2004: 317). In this sense monuments and other places of memory are crucial for collective and individual identities. The symbolism and location of such monuments, as Leib (2002) observed, are involved in the construction of identity and nationalism. Monuments transform public spaces into remembrances of the past. They shape and determine collective memory, and can be read and interpreted as the “norm”. As those landscapes write the past and get embedded into the collective memory, they serve as sites of identity construction. The

14 landscape is a concrete visual vehicle of inculcation (Peet 1998: 234). Therefore, the making of identities can be understood by looking at the socially built landscapes and more so their constructed meanings. People act and behave in great deal according to what they see.

Migration and Diasporic Identities According to the Dictionary of Human Geography (Johnston et. al. 2000), migration is a permanent or semi-permanent change of residence of an individual or group of people. However, migration is much more complex than a change of residence. Human movement is directly related to processes of diffusion, innovation, and interaction. People move, but along with them things, ideas, cultures, memories, perceptions, and identities move as well. In this sense, as Papastergiadis (2000) argues, migration is not just a step out, but also a step up; migrants are agents involved in a broader process of transformation. However, migration is not a movement that just happens; it has causes, effects, and different manifestations. In trying to explain such complexity, Papastergiadis (2000) identified two prevailing models of migration. First, the voluntarist perspective defined the movement in dual terms of an internal push out and external pull in. This push-pull model tries to explain the direction of migration flows based either on conditions and perceptions influencing the decision-making process, or circumstances that effectively attract the migrant. Second, the structuralist perspective, charted migration from a center- periphery conception of the global division of societies. This core and periphery model explains such movements based on relations of unequal distribution of power in economy, society and polity. Likewise, other models and explanations have been created to explain migration, from forced migration involving imposition, predominantly during colonial times, to voluntary migrations involving choice and options that have characterized modern times movements. Also, distinctions have to be made between emigrants who intend their departure to be permanent and those who intend for it to be temporary. Migrants who regularly move back and forth between home and host country with no particular intention of staying in either place for good are also a different category. As a

15 consequence, each movement is different and responds to different stimuli and has different manifestations. Migration has produced changes in all aspects of human life; changes that have profound effects on the way we understand our sense of belonging, our self- consciousness. These changes have also altered fundamental perceptions of time and space (Papastergiadis 2000: 2). Therefore, we can point out a direct relation between the way we construct our identity and our movements in time and space. As we move from place to place we continue adding new elements to the processes that shape our identities. Massey (1995) argued that the social and the spatial are inseparable and that the spatial has causal effecticity. Therefore, space and identity must be understood as dynamic concepts which are constituted through interactions (Papastergiadis 2000: 52). Migrants’ identities are also created in relation to their sense of belonging (McEwan 2004). Migrants’ self-consciousness is inseparable from their perceived position. Migrants who feel as an integral part of society will differ from those who perceive themselves as excluded from their destination country. Migrants come to the host country with a formed identity, in great part a product of lived experiences in their natal country, which may clash with the different social and cultural experience in their new country. These migrants cross borders bringing their culture with them, and they become relatively less or more assimilated to prevailing cultural norms of the new territory; they are either sojourners or settlers (McEwan 2004: 500). This process results in the construction of a new identity as a migrant community. The need to construct communities is deep, a universal feature of the human condition (Papastergiadis 2000: 196). Migrants often construct communities as a source of protection, to pursue common interests and values, and to pursue common practices. In the construction of such communities, migrants construct a distinct identity as a diaspora. Diasporas are associated with considerations of the nature of community and how people become members of a community (Brettell 2008). These diasporas connect multiple communities of dispersed populations that find themselves in closer position once separated from what they perceive as home. This closeness is defined in terms of myths and memories of the homeland, alienation in the host country, desire for eventual return, ongoing support of the homeland, and a collective identity (Clifford 1994: 305). As Brah

16 (1996: 196) noted, “diasporas are enmeshed in circuits of social, economic, and cultural ties encompassing both the mother country and the country of settlement”. Migrants construct a distinctive identity when they are exposed to the new cultural, social, political, and economic forms in the host country. However, the fact that a group lives outside its natal country does not necessarily mean that formation of a migrant community in the host country will occur. In order to become a diaspora, those groups have to construct a common identity that can give meaning and delimit the boundaries that creates the terms “they” and “us”. People who simply live outside their ancestral homeland, as Tölöyan (1996) observed, cannot automatically be considered a diaspora. Such communities distinctly attempt to maintain (real and/or imagined) connections and commitments to their homeland and recognize themselves and act as a collective community (Bhatia and Ram 2001: 2). Also, diasporas usually presuppose longer distances and separation more like exile: a constitutive taboo on return, or its postponement to the remote future (Clifford 1994: 304). Diasporas comprise a special kind of immigrants because they have retained a memory. This memory goes from perceiving cultural connection with, and a general orientation towards their homeland; they have institutions reflecting something of a homeland culture; they relate in some symbolic or practical way to their homeland; they harbor doubts about their full acceptance by the hostland; they are committed to their survival as a distinct community; and many retaine a myth of return (Safran 2004, 1991; Cohen 1997; Chaliand and Rageau 1995). Therefore, migrants become part of a diaspora through the linkages they form with others in the same situation and with the mother county. Separate places become effectively a single community through the continuous circulation of people, money, goods, and information (Rouse 1991: 14). A diaspora maintains memory, vision, or myth about their original homeland; they also often believe that they are not fully accepted by their host country, and see the ancestral home as a place of eventual return (Safran 1991: 83). Anthias (1998) outlines six criteria that define a diaspora, such as dispersal and scattering, collective trauma, cultural flowering, a troubled relationship with the majority, a sense of community transcending national frontiers, and promoting a return movement. However, all of these elements do not have to be present for the construction of a

17 diaspora. In equal terms, there is no specific hierarchy for the organization of these elements by a diaspora. Importance, however, lays on the collective consciousness of belonging, in other words, their sense of identity. Diasporas cannot and do not wish to be assimilated into or completely fused with the host society. However, without the creation of a collective consciousness of belonging they are at risk of assimilation. These processes of acculturation have further implications for diasporic and migrant subjects. As Bhatia and Ram (2001) argued, such processes refer to the plan or the method that individuals use in responding to stress- inducing new cultural contexts. In this sense, acculturation includes assimilation, integration, separation, and marginalization (Berry and Sam 1997: 297). Berry (1997) suggests that assimilation occurs when the individual decides not to maintain his or her original culture; and integration when the individual expresses an interest in maintaining strong ties with both its ethnic group and the host society. On the other hand, separation occurs when the individual places a value on holding on to his/her original culture, and seeks no contact with the host society. Marginalization occurs when the individual loses cultural and psychological contact with both its culture and the host society. To resist assimilation into the host country, and to avoid social amnesia about their collective histories, diasporic people attempt to revive, recreate, and invent their artistic, linguistics, economic, religious, cultural, and political practices and productions (Hua 2005: 191). With these practices diasporas seek to create a collective consciousness that can hold together the sense of community. To obtain such collective consciousness, diasporas construct institutions. Diasporas rely on institutions that can aid them in producing a sense of identity (Safran 2004). These institutions serve as facilitators to create and maintain collective memory and the cohesiveness to form their community. Safran (2004) suggested that “without such institutions diasporas cannot exist; but the creation and maintenance of such institutions requires a demographic thickness.” For Safran such demographic thickness can only be obtained through sufficient numbers of diasporans to constitute a critical mass. Therefore, diasporas require symbolic spaces to obtain such thickness that will consequently create the institutions that can maintain their community.

18 Symbolic spaces are substitutes for, and physical reminders of, the homeland. Substitute homeland spaces intend to reproduce homeland features such as food, music, language, and landscapes among others. Street names, public art, statues, flags, and commercial signs can be used to create these symbolic spaces. Other collective activities such as day parades, festivals, and holidays are also actors in the creation of symbolic spaces of the homeland. As Agnew (2005: 14) argued, “diasporic individuals focus on their attachment to the symbols of their ethnicity to continue feeling emotionally involved with the homeland and the nation that emanates from it.” These symbolic spaces are vital to diasporas’ national feeling, which have long been used to link people to the homeland. In this sense, control over territory is a powerful strategy to control people (Delaney 2005: 72). The fusion of a piece of land with the symbolic and mythified history of the nation is what gives nationalism such symbolic power (Agnew 2004: 227). That territorial claim thus is the need to materialize power over people, the nation; and therefore, central to maintain and reproduce collective identities. In this context, places of memory, monumental places, and other symbolism in the landscape have been of particular significance in bonding people (Johnson 2004; Till 2003; Leib 2002). The chief function of the landscape is precisely to control meaning and to channel it in particular directions (Mitchell 2000: 100). So, space or, more particularly territory, is as intrinsic to memory as historical consciousness in the definition of a national identity (Johnson 1995: 55). Similarly, remembering the past is profoundly significant for the emergence of collective identities. People recall the past to fashion outlooks in the present (Bodnar 1996: 621). And when remembering the past they do it so collectively. Individuals do not remember alone, they discuss the events of their experiences and formulate explanations of what had occurred in their lives with other people (Bodnar 1989: 1202). The landscape itself is an active agent in constituting that history, serving as a symbol for the needs and desire of the people who live in it (Mitchell 2000: 95). As Berger (1972) stated, landscape is both a place and a way of seeing, both a sensibility and a lived relation. Therefore, national landscape imagery is a visual technique that naturalizes particular images into a national narrative (Häyrynen 2000).

19 However, migrants’ and diasporas’ behavior in the host country can present numerous variations. Depending on how these people identify themselves, whether as an integral part of the host society or as outsiders, will determine their views and perspectives about their everyday actions in the host country. Being a migrant is often a negative identity imposed by the dominant culture; thus the experience and effects of migration are long-term and critical in shaping and reshaping both collective and individual identities (Benmayor and Skotnes 1994: 8). Differences in migrants’ backgrounds and socio-economics also have an effect on their behavior in the host country. Wealthy individuals who have economic and cultural power are able to challenge and in some cases transform the notions of exclusion toward migrants, predominant in the host countries (Mitchell 1993). Likewise, migrants can minimize their feelings of status inconsistency through participation in organizations directed to them (Jones-Correa 1998: 333). But again, wealthy immigrants have more influence and power over those organizations than do others part of the community. Nonetheless, diasporic communities are somewhat different from migrant subjects. Migrants are more likely to be assimilated than diasporas. In the case of migrants, they may experience loss and nostalgia at the time of movement, but only during the “transitional” period to the new home. On the other hand, diasporas maintain important allegiances and practical connections to a homeland or a dispersed community located elsewhere that impede such assimilation (Clifford 1994; Sackmann, Peters, and Faist 2003).

Transnationalism and Hybridity Diasporic identities are related to a vast field of meanings including deterritorialization. The concept of deterritorialization refers to people’s perception of belonging to various communities despite the fact that they do not share a common territory with all the members of the community. Such community reaches beyond territories, borders, and nation-states. This behavior is what Anderson (1991) called “imagined communities.” According to Anderson, these are imagined for three reasons; first it is imagined as limited because even the largest communities has finite, if elastic, boundaries, beyond which lie other communities. Second, it is imagined as a community

20 because, regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the community is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship. Third, it is imagined because the member of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow- members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the mind of each lives the image of their community. Consequently, the cultures of diasporas emerge as a special form of deterritorialized transnational ethnic community marked by a persistent sense of belonging among members across borders and generations (Safran 1991; Clifford 1994; Dahlman 2004). Diasporas denote specific socio-spatial formations and cultural expressions that differentiate them from simple migrant groups. Among those distinct formations are transnationalism and hybridity. The concepts of diasporas and transnationalism share some common ground. In some instances, diasporas can be identified as the building block for transnational communities (Levitt and Glick 2004), but in others diasporas are just an example of the transnational community (Faist 2000). But the truth is that transnationalism has a somewhat different meaning; this is seen from the premises that on the one hand, diasporas have a common history of dispersal, myths/memories of the homeland, ongoing support of the homeland, and a collective identity (Clifford 1994: 305), and on the other hand transnationalism refers to the actual networks of social, economic and political ties that the people develop and sustain across borders (Olwig 2004: 55). Based on this, diasporas denote a largely mental state of belonging, which may be grounded in physical movements that took place many generations before, and transnationalism is shaped by present-day movements between at least two nation-states and the resulting cross-border relations (Olwig 2004: 55). Transnationalism describes a condition in which somewhat regularized nongovernmental transborder relations persist among individuals who share a common culture and historical memory, a common experience of dispersal from and loss of a homeland, and a desire to symbolically maintain, or physically return to, that homeland (Cohen 1997: 26). In this sense, people who live transnational lives weave their collective identity out of multiple affiliations and positionings and link their cross-cutting belongingness with complex attachments and multiple allegiances to issues, people,

21 places, and traditions beyond the boundaries of their resident nation-state (McEwan 2004: 501). Therefore, considerations of transnationalism are crucial for the understanding of the process making diasporic identities. These transnational connections affect migrants’ practices of constructing, maintaining, and negotiating collective identities. As McEwan (2004) noted, “such transnational connections have a significant bearing on the culture and identity of the second generation, or children born to migrants.” Particular communal identities are constructed in this transnational phase. It is here, as transnational subjects, where processes of constructing and actively maintaining social fields across borders occur. The actors forming such communities neither are exclusively “located” here or there, nor are they exclusively in between. In this sense, Schmitter (2008: 95) suggested that reaching beyond both sending and receiving countries, and seemingly deterritorialized, these linkages give rise to a new social formation, the transnational community, and a new identity, the transnational identity. From this transnational perspective, migrants are no longer “uprooted,” but rather move freely back and forth across international borders and between different cultures and social systems (Sutton 1987; Georges 1990; Kearney 1991; Rouse 1991; Smith 1993; Grimes 1998; Levitt 1998; Vertovec 1999; Brettell 2008). Transnational activities can be divided into specific levels, types, and frequencies. Itzigsohn et al. (1999) differentiate broad transnationalism, referring to more sporadic involvement, and narrow transnationalism, referring to frequent, sustained, and institutionalized transnational economic, political, social, and cultural activities. Likewise, Portes (2003) notes differences between broad transnationalism, which includes both regular and occasional activities, and strict transnationalism, which refers to regular participation only. On the other hand, Levitt (2001) distinguished between core and expanded transnational practices. For Levitt, core transnational practices can be both comprehensive in the sense that they involve many different activities, and selective in that they involve only one activity. In contrast, she sees expanded transnationalism as more periodic and occasional. Similarly, hybridity is important for considerations of diaspora and migrant identities. This concept is frequently employed to describe the effects of migrancy on identity. Hybridity denotes fusion, mixture, mosaics, bilingualism or multilingualism, and

22 cohabitation. In this regard, Papastergiadis (2000: 14) argued that “hybridity has become one of the most useful concepts for representing the meaning of cultural difference in identity.” It invariably acknowledges that identity is constructed through a negotiation of difference, and that the presence of fissures, gaps and contradictions is not necessarily a sign of failure (Papastergiadis 2000: 170). In other words, hybridity refers to the condition of being a multiply-constituted subject (Bhabha 1994). Yet, hybridity implies a degree of selective acculturation. In that sense, diasporic and migrant subjects may be in the position of selecting the aspects of their culture that they will substitute for the ones taken from the host culture. But at the same time, hybridity is also a manifestation of resistance to homogenization or complete assimilation (Prabhu 2007: 12). Hybrid subjects construct their identities from a desire to preserve some link to the homeland, but not necessarily completely rejecting the hostland. Therefore, hybridity is theorized as processes resulting from the combination of peoples and cultures. It is a stage of being an in-between, in the middle of two opposing or different conditions. In some instances, this in-betweenness suggests harmonization. This harmonization denotes some sort of agreement between the old and the new without losing the past or assimilating into the new (Hall 1992). As Kraidy (2005) argued, “being hybrid is to create an identity based in the host country but drawing its emotive energy from the native county.” Therefore, hybridity presuppose the existence, even at some distant period, of a pure culture, which has subsequently hybridized by incorporating elements of other cultures (Silva 2002). This stage of in-betweenness that hybrid identities presuppose is what some scholars like Bhabha and Soja have called “third space”. For Bhabha (1990: 211), “the unity of hybridity is not found in the sum of its parts, but emerges from the process of opening a third space, within which other elements encounter and transform each other”. This is a state of belonging to both and to neither, or as Bhabha (1994: 219) said, “neither one not the other but something else besides, in-between”. For Soja (1996), hybridity is a third existential dimension. In this context, third space is a creative recombination and extension that builds on a firstspace perspective that is focused on the real material world and a secondspace perspective that interprets this reality through imagined representations of spatiality (Soja 1996: 6).

23 These third spaces are essential to the process of hybridization. In this context, Soja (1996: 143) argued that “these in-between spaces provide the terrain for elaborating strategies of selfhood, singular or communal, that initiate new signs of identity”. These spaces are both real and imagined and are filled with symbols, memories, ideologies, and politics. Consequently, hybrid or third spaces are inhabited by multi-constituted residents, who are engaged in a process of negotiation of difference. These are spaces of resistance to the dominant order that these residents are subject to due to their subordinate, peripheral or marginalized position as hybrids (Soja 1996: 68). Beyond the creation of spaces of in-betweenness, the concept of hybridity has different connotations. Prabhu (2007) noted that “hybridity has spawned a variegated vocabulary, including terms such as syncretism, métissage, mulato, and creolization”. Such concepts, each one seen from a particular perspective and scenario, try to explain hybrid identities over time and space. At the same time, syncretism, métissage, mulato, and creolization deal with the “specifics” of hybridity. In other words, the existence of this variegated vocabulary illustrates how hybrid identities are not constructed over just one factor or consideration, but rather on the basis of multiple phenomena that include race and ethnicity, history, nationalism, and space. For instance, syncretism is most often used to describe religious fusions or traditional symbolic environments. It presupposes a symbolic relationship without paying the necessary attention to economics, political and social inequalities (Brah and Coombes 2000: 1). On the other hand, métissage or mestizaje refer to hybrids on the basis of racial mixtures, while mulato, a term that comes from “mule”, refers to a mix of two pure elements resulting in an impure hybrid. In the case of creolization, the creole subject is based on birthplace. Creolization, as Kraidy (2005: 55) argued, “came to life in the wake of European colonialism in the New World and has now diffused into a few distinct usages linked by a shared history of political and cultural struggles with Europe’s empires”. Consequently, it reflects a connection between New World birth and deculturation (Stewart 1999: 44). However, creolization addresses diasporic communities’ concern about advancement without blind assimilation but rather by preserving difference, allying around particular cases, connecting with other diaspora (Prabhu 2007: 4).

24 These diverse vocabularies, nevertheless, indicate the complexity behind hybrid identities. However, the use of the term hybrid over syncretism, métissage, mulato, and creolization denotes a broader and multipurpose meaning. Hybridity is syncretism, métissage, mulato, and creolization all together, but also goes beyond those. Hybridity is related to migration and diasporas; it deals with transnationalism, memory, symbolic spaces; but more importantly it plays an important role in ever uncompleted processes of identity construction.

Conclusion Identity involves processes of self-consciousness and group identification. In doing so, individuals construct boundaries of belonging and difference, drawing lines of inclusion and exclusion. Such boundaries help both individuals and groups to establish opposites such as us vs. them, which are necessary in the identity-making process. However, this view does not mean that identities are stable or a completed product. Identities are always an incomplete process with multiplicity of difference, contradiction, fluidity, contextuality, and dynamism (Pile and Thrift 1995). In short, they are changeable, contingent, and diverse. As a result, we have multiple identities as our differences are manifested in various forms within our daily lives. The construction of such boundaries of belonging and difference has spatial manifestations. Therefore, space is an important element in understanding identities. The making of identities can be understood by looking at the different socially constructed sites and their contextual meanings. The making of identities is the result of interactions between those socially constructed sites and what individuals and groups bring with them. In that sense, individuals’ life experiences directly influence how they make sense of their selves. Consequently, individuals who share a common culture and historical memory, a common experience of dispersal from and loss of a homeland, and a desire to symbolically maintain, or physically return to, that homeland will construct a particular identity that will encompass elements of the homeland and the hostland. Their life experiences are a product of transnational lives that shape their collective identity out of multiple affiliations and positionings. Such transnational connections affect individuals’

25 practices of constructing, maintaining, and negotiating collective identities. Therefore, individuals living transnational lives are subject to hybridity by means of fusion, mixture, mosaics, bilingualism or multilingualism, and cohabitation. The recognition of these practices of individual and group self-consciousness is crucial to understand how the Puerto Rican diaspora in the metropolitan area of Orlando makes sense of themselves, as Puerto Rican identities are based on differences of language, nationalism, and predominantly on place of origin (birth). Moreover, Puerto Rican identities not only differentiate them from labels like “American” but also from “Hispanic/Latino” groups from elsewhere in Latin America. In addition, Puerto Ricans come from varied backgrounds, and terms like “island-born Puerto Rican” and “mainland-born Puerto Rican” or “Nuyorican” are highly contested and used as the main means to define affiliation. Puerto Ricans born in the mainland U.S. may be Puerto Ricans, Nuyoricans, Orlandoricans, etc. depending on place. In Metro-Orlando, each Puerto Rican group comes with a different interpretation of Puerto Ricanness, each based on different origins, mode of economic, political and cultural incorporation, and also values, traditions, beliefs and practices. These differences can be seen through internal conflicts and struggles over claims of authenticity to determine boundaries of inclusion and exclusion to the Puerto Rican community. Therefore, Puerto Rican identities are characterized by hybridity, multiplicity, and complexity. I want to provide a glimpse of the meaning of Puerto Ricanness in the metropolitan area of Orlando, Florida. Doing this is not an easy task, more so when it entails dealing with the unpredictability and complexity of human behavior. However, it is precisely people’s stories and experiences in which I am interested. These personal narratives are imperative to get the most information possible about their political, cultural, economic, and social perceptions and preferences, as well as their physical surroundings that is necessary to understand their self-consciousness reasoning. Consequently, I provide such a glimpse by presenting voices of the Puerto Rican community of Metro-Orlando. In this way I allow the real actors of the Puerto Rican community to construct their own accounts of their experiences by describing and explaining their lives in their own words.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

The construction of identity is not a simple process. The making of identities is complex and dynamic, taking place at many levels and evolving different contexts. Therefore, trying to identify someone’s identity (or identities) is a challenging task, and trying to explore Puerto Rican identities is not an exception. Because Puerto Rican identities are based on differences of language, race, sexuality, gender, class, nationalism, and predominantly on place of origin, mapping such identities is a process that requires a close examination to the full range of conditions that can possibly be a source of Puerto Ricanness. Therefore, to complete my task of investigating how Puerto Rican identity is been constructed in the Orlando metropolitan area, I first examine the historical evolution of Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans as a nation, the emigration between the island and the mainland, and the formation of the Puerto Rican diaspora. Likewise, I examine the evolution of political relations between Puerto Rico and the United States to situate Puerto Rican identity formations in the contexts of island-Puerto Ricans and mainland-Puerto Ricans, and other variations resulting from the combinations of the two. This research was conducted in the Orlando, Florida metropolitan area for two reasons. First, despite the fact that New York still has the largest number of Puerto Rican residents in the U.S., the proportion of Puerto Ricans in the state of Florida has dramatically increased in recent years. The growth of Florida’s Puerto Rican population has reached the point that Florida currently has the fastest growing Puerto Rican community on the mainland, and has already surpassed New Jersey as the second largest concentration of Puerto Ricans in the U.S. (Table 1). Second, Puerto Ricans now represent the second largest group of Hispanics in Florida, after Cubans, and the largest in Central Florida, particularly in the Orlando metropolitan area. In the Orlando metropolitan area, Puerto Ricans represent 45 to 70 percent of all Hispanics, making it the fourth largest metropolitan area for Puerto Ricans in the United States.

Table 1: Puerto Rican Population in Selected States Source: U.S. Census Bureau State 1990 2000 2006 New York 1,086,601 1,050,293 1,071,394 Florida 247,010 482,027 682,432 New Jersey 320,133 366,788 392,619 Pennsylvania 148,988 228,557 290,568 Illinois 146,059 157,851 169,955

I conducted data collection activities between August 2007 and January 2008. I interviewed ten people within Orlando’s Puerto Rican community holding various political views, and with a variety of cultural and economic backgrounds. I also administered 70 questionnaires to “ordinary Puerto Ricans” within the Orlando metropolitan area. In addition, I observed the Puerto Rican Day Parade of Orlando, the Christmas Festival/Three Kings Day of Orlando, and other collective activities celebrated by Puerto Rican organizations in the Orlando metropolitan area. My objective was to bring perspectives from different groups and scenarios within the Orlando Puerto Rican community. I developed my analysis of a variety of individual experiences and institutions to understand the process of being Puerto Rican. This analysis included actors such as individual Puerto Ricans, leaders of the Metro-Orlando Puerto Rican community, and local Puerto Rican organizations. All of these elements influence Metro-Orlando Puerto Ricans, and are a tool to think about and understand their reality as a community in the making. My intention is to explore: (1) who can claim to be a Puerto Rican and how can that claim be legitimated culturally and politically, and (2) how the contestation and negotiation of Puerto Ricanness is grounded in place.

Methods of Data Gathering My methods of data gathering included four different data collection activities: in- depth interviews, questionnaires, document analysis, and fieldwork. Each of these activities provides a different window to understand the processes of Puerto Rican identity construction.

Interviews. The nature of this research suggests the use of open-ended interviews. This kind of qualitative interviews allows interaction between an interviewer and a respondent in which the interviewer establishes a general direction for the conversation and pursues specific topics raised by the respondent (Babbie 2004: 300). In investigating how Puerto Ricans construct their identity and the elements important in that process, it is imperative to get the most information possible about their political, cultural, economic, and social perceptions and preferences, as well as their physical surroundings. Success in getting the necessary information rests on the richness of the data gathered. Interviews are sensitive and people-oriented, which allows interviewees to construct their own accounts of their experiences by describing and explaining their lives in their own words (Valentine 1997: 111). I am interested in other people’s stories and experiences, therefore it is very important to keep possibilities open and to not limit respondents’ answers. People’s consciousness allows us to access the most complicated social issues because social issues are abstractions from concrete lived experiences (Limb and Dwyer 2001; Seidman 1998). In that regard, open-ended interviews were carried out to find out how Puerto Ricans define their national and personal identity (Puerto Ricanness) and what elements are important in the process of Puerto Rican identity building. Interviews included community, religious, and political leaders (Table 2). These leaders have influence over public opinion and they are more aware of community matters than the everyday populace. By conducting these in-depth interviews, I wanted to understand how identities materialize in the everyday experiences and practices. Also, I was interested in individual perceptions rather than collective behavior (Denzin and Lincoln 1998). Therefore, the actual size of the interview group was a secondary issue (Limb and Dwyer 2001). Consequently, I was more concerned with exploring the whole range of realistic responses from interviewees rather than achieving a specific number of interviews.

29 Table 2: List of Interviewees Interviewee Personal Information 1) Puerto Rico’s government representative Island-born Puerto Rican who has been in Orlando living in Orlando for 10 years.

2) Pastor of one of the major Puerto Puerto Rican born in New York who was Rican churches in Metro-Orlando raised between the island and the mainland. Came to Orlando from the island seven years ago. 3) County commissioner Commissioner of a county in Metro- Orlando with high Puerto Rican population. An island-born Puerto Rican who relocated to Orlando 15 years ago. 4) City commissioner #1 Commissioner of a city within the Orlando metropolitan area with high Puerto Rican population. An island-born Puerto Rican who moved to Florida 20 years ago. 5) City commissioner #2 Commissioner of a city within Metro- Orlando with significant Puerto Rican concentrations. An island-born Puerto Rican who relocated to Florida 22 years ago.

6) Former president of a Puerto Rican An island-born Puerto Rican who moved to organization in Central Florida Central Florida 22 years ago. 7) President of one of the major Puerto An island-born Puerto Rican who moved to Rican associations in Metro-Orlando Orlando 21 years ago. 8) Director of the leading Puerto Rican An island-born Puerto Rican who relocated newspaper in Central Florida to Metro-Orlando 3 years ago. 9) Vice-president of the committee An island-born Puerto Rican who relocated responsible for organizing of the to Central Florida 20 years ago. Puerto Rican Day Parade in Orlando 10) University professor An island-born who has extensively researched the Puerto Rican diaspora.

I used purposeful criterion sampling (Patton 1990) to contact “visible” key actors of the Metro-Orlando Puerto Rican community such as elected governmental officials, political leaders and policymakers, religious leaders, civic and cultural leaders, and

30 business owners. I also used my personal contacts in both the island and the mainland to locate such “visible” key actors. This practice was crucial to my data collection because I was interested in selecting participants with influence over public opinion. These participants reflected the wide range in the larger population that I intended to study (Riessman 1994; Ritchie and Lewis 2003; Seidman 1998). Therefore, I purposefully selected different individuals with various political views, cultural and economic backgrounds. Interviews were conducted face to face at various places such as the participant’s office or place of business. The language in which interviews were held varied from Spanish to English. The selection of the language used on these interviews depended on interviewee’s preferences. Prior to the beginning of each interview, I asked interviewees whether they prefered to conduct the interview in Spanish or English. In this way, besides conducting the interviews in the interviewee’s preferred language, I was able to explore the “Spanish language factor” among interviewees, since language appears to be one of the main factors involved in the construction of identities. Our conversations were tape- recorded only when I was given permission to do so, and interviews were conducted with the understanding that privacy would be maintained. Questions were open-ended, and focused specifically on various aspects of respondent’s life and experience in the United States. I intentionally utilized a semi- structured format, so that while relevant themes were covered, there was room for more inquisitive and interpretative questions to articulate further meaning and the complexity of events. The interviews considered various questions concerning: - General demographic information (e.g., age, gender, occupation, education level, parents’ place of birth, etc.). - Life in Puerto Rico (e.g., How does your life in Puerto Rico compare with your life in Orlando?). - Migration (e.g., When did you first come to Florida? Why did you migrate to the Florida? Do you come from the Island or the mainland? From what municipality/state? Do you prefer to live in a Puerto Rican community? Why?). - Contact with Puerto Rico (e.g., Have you ever been to Puerto Rico? How often do you go to Puerto Rico? Do you speak Spanish? Do you maintain any contact with

31 family/friends in Puerto Rico? How? Do you follow the news in Puerto Rico? How frequently?). - Everyday life (e.g., Do you go to places where most people are Puerto Ricans or Americans? Why? Are your friends mainly Puerto Ricans or Americans? What kind of Puerto Rican activities do you practice? Do you celebrate Puerto Rican holidays? Do you participate or go to the Puerto Rican parade? Why?). - Puerto Ricanness (e.g., How do you identify yourself, Puerto Rican, American, or both? What does it mean to you to be a Puerto Rican? What elements are important in order to be a Puerto Rican? How do you preserve your Puerto Rican identity? Do you think that Puerto Ricans in the United States are losing their Puerto Ricanness? If yes, what are some signs of that? Do you think your children are more Americanized than your generation? If yes, what are some signs of that?). - Different Identities (e.g., Do you see any differences between island-born and mainland-born Puerto Ricans? If so, what are some examples of such differences?). - Sites of Puerto Ricanness (e.g., How important is your neighborhood for your Puerto Ricanness? What places would you consider as Puerto Rican? Why? How important are those “Puerto Rican places”? Why?). However, the use of open-ended interviews entails some difficulties that can significantly affect my research results. Research is an interactive process shaped by the researcher’s personal history, biography, gender, social class, race, and ethnicity, and by those of the people in the setting (Denzin and Lincoln 1994: 6). These “bias dangers” can be more present when doing interviews. Therefore, it is vital to keep the conversation focused and directed towards the aims of the research. In doing that it is important to have a clear idea what is going to be asked in order to get the necessary information. Likewise, open-ended interviews require interpretation of what people mean in what they say, and the failure to correctly interpret their meaning can significantly affect the results of the research.

Questionnaire. Besides in-depth interviews, I used a structured questionnaire to gather more information regarding the Puerto Rican identity formation processes in the Orlando metropolitan area. It is clear that I am interested in people’s consciousness and

32 perceptions. However, collective behavior is also important to understand how Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando are making sense of themselves and how spaces have been used to produce and reproduce Puerto Ricanness. In this regard, a questionnaire administered to a larger group gave me a better understanding of Puerto Ricans’ general perceptions and collective memories in the area. The questionnaire was administered to 70 Puerto Ricans within the Orlando metropolitan area. These Puerto Ricans were identified among the membership of local and regional Puerto Rican cultural, civic, political, religious, business, and student organizations. Since I knew very few people in Metro-Orlando, it was difficult for me to locate my study population. Therefore I used “snowball sampling” to contact individuals and various Puerto Rican organizations in the area through my personal contacts in both the island and the mainland. I usually asked my respondents to recruit or identify other possible respondents. With the questionnaire I hoped to gain valuable information from the general populace regarding Puerto Rican identity construction processes in Orlando. The questionnaire, besides the general socio-demographic questions, also included questions to determine Puerto Ricans’ current connections and links with Puerto Rico. More significantly, I included specific questions regarding their perceptions of what it means to be a Puerto Rican, particularly in Metro-Orlando. I asked how they self-identify, and about the elements that are important in order to be a Puerto Rican. I also asked them about assimilation and “Americanization” in the Metro-Orlando community. Finally, I included questions regarding their perceptions about the differences (if any) between island-born and mainland-born Puerto Ricans (see Appendix B). The information obtained through this set of questions provided me a glimpse of Metro-Orlando Puerto Ricans’ collective behavior. This information is crucial in understanding the meaning of Puerto Ricanness in the metropolitan area of Orlando.

Fieldwork. Participant observation was another important data collection technique that I carried out for the duration of the study in the Orlando metropolitan area. This approach secures data lodged in the meanings ascribed to the world by active social subjects (Smith 1984: 357). In this sense, space is targeted as an important factor in social

33 and cultural relations. The making of identities can be understood by actively examining such spaces. That space serves as a text that is read and actively affects and influences people’s collective memory. People do not just see the space; they read it and interpret what is in it. Symbols reflect values, aspirations, and cohesiveness in tangible, visible form. This phenomenon makes landscapes central to the ongoing production and reproduction of identities. Therefore it is pertinent for this study to explore the landscapes where these processes of identity construction are taking place. Fieldwork provided a way to explore the role of space in reproducing identity (Kitchin and Tate 2000). In this context, I applied participant and/or site observation through the analysis of public displays of the Puerto Rican community, specifically the Orlando Puerto Rican Day Parade and other Puerto Rican festival in Metro-Orlando. Date parades, festivals, carnivals, and civic pageantry have performed an important function in community building (Jones, Jones and Woods 2004). These collective activities constitute ceremonial spaces that are used as identity construction sites. These “identity construction sites” (Cornell and Hartmann 1998) are important in the construction of Puerto Ricanness. The site of social, cultural, and political interactions determine the ways in which individuals and organizations came to conceive of themselves. In that regard, it is important to explore the role and relevance that these “sites” have to the processes of Puerto Rican identity construction, whether these sites reflect differences between “levels of Puerto Ricanness” or are used to define affiliation. This fieldwork complemented the information obtained from my interviews and questionnaires. Participant observation allowed me to engage in the web of Puerto Ricans’ lives in Orlando and to capture the complexity of the process of making sense of their selves. Document analysis. Other techniques, such as document analysis, were used together with in-depth interviews, questionnaire, and participant observation in my research. This technique consisted of the analysis of publications and documents such as newspapers, similar studies, census data, archive material, and audiovisual material related to my research. Text analysis served as a source of complementary information and data to support the information gathered through open-ended interviews, questionnaires, and participant observations. This technique was useful for the necessary

34 theoretical and background data and information that is vital for a full and proper understanding of the research’s results. In that regard, I used data from the U.S. Census and other sources to draw a geographical portrait and a demographic and economic profile of the Puerto Rican population in the United States, particularly in the Orlando metropolitan area. Likewise, I used that information to map Puerto Ricans’ distribution and patterns in the state of Florida. As well, other materials, such as local newspapers and magazines, organization newsletters, fliers and brochures were useful in allowing me to gather more information about Puerto Ricans’ everyday life in Orlando.

Analysis and Reflections Predominantly qualitative research methods were used to analyze the data by building several broad themes of analysis used to address the research questions. I focused on qualitative methods primarily because a statistical approach would seriously limit a meaningfully analysis of people’s stories and experiences. In that regard, field notes were crucially important in extracting relevant details and salient themes (Robinson 1998). In addition to the field notes, tape-recording of the interviews and photographs of visual information concerning identity construction sites played an important role in the analysis. Open-ended interviews were very useful. Through these methods I was able to obtain sensitive and people-oriented experiences by describing and explaining their lives in their own words (Valentine 1997). As a result of my analysis of the responses of my interviewees and my participant observations, I began to become more aware of the constructed nature of “Puerto Ricanness” and the role of institutions in their formation. This step was crucial because it helped me to understand the complexity behind the different labels that denote Puerto Ricanness, such as “island-born Puerto Rican”, “mainland-born Puerto Rican”, “Nuyorican”, and perhaps the future used of the label “Orlandorican”. Therefore, I began to consider how these labels and identities are influenced by institutions, and how they are manifested on space. I first transcribed the interviews and evaluated the information provided in them in order to develop a content analysis of each respondent’s understanding of the

35 processes of Puerto Rican identity construction occurring in the Orlando metropolitan area. Second, I coded the transcribed texts from the interviews, and organized that information into categories. By coding the transcribed texts I transformed the raw data obtained from the interviews into a standardized form that facilitated its understanding and analysis. The exact coded concepts were determined recursively throughout the research process (see Appendix C for a list of codes). For that purpose I used ATLAS.ti (a coding software), with which I am familiar and have used in the past for similar activities involving interviews (see Appendix D). This software is designed to qualitatively analyze textual, graphical, audio, and video data. It allows the researcher to use grounded theory1 to identify themes in the data not contained in the existing literature. Yet, codes reflecting concepts closely related to the theory contained on the existing literature were used as well. Examples of these concepts include: • Notions of language as a critical factor in Puerto Rican identity. • The use of institutions as facilitators to create and maintain collective memory and cohesiveness to form a community. • The use of labels such as Nuyorican to justify inclusion or exclusion. Finally, a series of patterns among codes were identified in order to delineate recurrent themes that in turn allowed me to better understand the process of Puerto Rican identity construction in the Orlando metropolitan area. As I came into contact with individuals and institutions, my own positionality became part of my research as some of my interviewees related me to them and assumed I was part of the community. Since I am Puerto Rican, island-born, and live in Florida, most of my interviewees assumed my research was an “inside job”, which they welcomed gratefully as something positive for the better of the “community”. In that sense, both the topic of my research and my identity removed many obstacles in terms of my access to their lives. I ended up knowing in a personal way several important figures and elected official in Central Florida, including officials representing the government of Puerto Rico in the Orlando metropolitan area. They, in most cases, offered me their help and support.

1 Grounded Theory originated from the work of Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss (1999). It is a systematic qualitative research methodology that states that theory can be generated from data in the process of conducting research.

36 In one case I was even encouraged to join them in the future as an elected official after finishing my degree! My interactions and exchanges with such personalities made me more aware of the relations of power involved in the production of identities. The power to include and exclude, to decide the elements composing Puerto Ricanness in the Orlando metropolitan area was something that I could not have ignored as I witnessed the internal struggle between island-born Puerto Ricans and Nuyoricans for recognition in the community. With this challenge, I felt obligated to see identity construction as a dynamic process, in which individuals struggle in the face of spatial and institutional boundaries of Puerto Ricanness. These experiences shifted and transformed my initial interview questions, as I tried to use my positionality to my advantage. Sometimes sharing the same background or similar identity as the informant can have positive effects, facilitating the development of a rapport between interviewer and interviewee and thus producing rich, detailed conversation based on empathy and mutual respect and understanding (Valentine 1997: 113). Consequently, this research experience turned out to be a dynamic process as my interviews materialized into a real dialogue, causing the reevaluation of my position and questions. However, and although minimal, I faced some complications. The fact that I am in Tallahassee and my research was based on the Orlando metropolitan area made the data collection process challenging. I often found myself making round trips on a single day from Tallahassee to Orlando several times in the same week. This issue was limiting in the sense that I did not have as much time as I would liked to spent driving around Puerto Rican neighborhoods and to walk around to explore in better detail the area. Nonetheless, thanks to my friends in the area, who were very supportive, I made the most of my time in Metro-Orlando. Another complication, even though not affecting my interview results, was arranging meetings. Because the people I selected for my interviews were mainly politicians and presidents of large organization, the task of finding a time to sit and talk was not always easy. Yet, regardless of this fact, I met with all of my target subjects and all of them received me in their offices, in all cases being kind and very supportive, which I greatly appreciate.

37 Perhaps the only major complication that I encountered was with one of the politicians I interviewed. The interview started well, the interviewee was supportive and gave me valuable information. However, after an hour of conversation the interviewee noticed a green wristband that I have on my left hand. My band stands for independence for Puerto Rico. At the beginning of the interview, when I asked about the reason he migrated from the island to Florida, the interviewee made clear that he migrated in part due to political reasons, since he was (and still is) part of the pro-statehood party in Puerto Rico, he was forced to migrate due to political “persecution” from the current pro- commonwealth government. After that point the interview started to fall apart. He became somewhat arrogant, giving a political turn to all my questions, and although respectfully, he started to add comments about how pro-independence people should stay in the island. Since that experience I became more alert of any message that I could consciously or unconsciously send to my interviewees that could potentially affect the development of the interviews. Nevertheless, I was at all times aware of my personal circumstances and constraints, as my positionality could be both beneficial and disabling. My personal position could restrict the development of my research by limiting me to see only “one side”, or by not allowing me to reflect upon views that are opposed to my own views. My failure to engage the appropriate position could lead me and my research to misleading generalizations. Therefore, I tried to strike a balance between being a researcher and being one of “them”. I made such a balance possible by adding some formality and emphasizing my position as a researcher. I always referred to my interviewees by their titles and last names, never mistaking a friendly research environment for a casual talk with a fellow Puerto Rican. In conclusion, in this study I attempt to explore Puerto Rican identity (identities) in the Orlando metropolitan area of Florida as they continue to develop a sense of community based on different perspectives of Puerto Ricanness.

CHAPTER IV

PUERTO RICO – UNITED STATES RELATIONS

The Treaty of Paris signed on December 10, 1898 between Spain and the United States formally ended the Spanish-American War, but it also initiated a long relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States. Since that date Puerto Rico and the United States have been engaged in a complex political, economic, social, and cultural exchange that has transformed both the island and the mainland. This relationship has opened the doors to an exchange of ideas, beliefs, and customs. However, the most predominant effect of this exchange has been a spectacular migration from the island to the mainland, allowing Puerto Ricans to move back and forth from place to place. This relationship is fertile soil for a growing diaspora with strong ties to the island and different interpretations of Puerto Ricanness. For Puerto Ricans, this relationship is embedded with concepts of nationalism, nation building, and national identities. The United States-Puerto Rico relationship has been and still is a major influential factor on the processes making Puerto Rican self- consciousness. Consequently, the examination of how Puerto Ricans are making sense of themselves, how they are defining the boundaries of belonging, and how they are constructing Puerto Ricanness, not only within the island but beyond its boundaries, relies on an understanding of this long lasting relation between Puerto Rico and the United States. In this chapter I explore this century long history of United States-Puerto Rico relations. First, I provide a historical overview of this relationship and how such relations have been influential for the Puerto Rican migration and, consequently, diaspora formation. Second, I discuss how the development of the island’s political status dilemma relates to issues of Puerto Rican identity formation. Finally, I examine how the debates taking place in the United States regarding United States-Puerto Rico relations are charged with issues involving the negotiation and renegotiation of different perceptions of Puerto Ricanness.

39 Historical Overview Puerto Rico has been a colony for more than five centuries. However, on July 25, 1898, as a consequence of the Spanish-American war, United States troops invaded the island and Puerto Rico passed from Spanish to U.S. control. Since then, Puerto Rico has been a colony of the United States. Not long after the invasion, the actions of the United States revealed their intentions concerning Puerto Rico. In the Insular Cases1 of 1901, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the controversial question of whether the United States could acquire and govern colonies without committing either to admit them to statehood or grant them independence. The Court concluded that the former Spanish colonies belonged to the United States but were not part of the United States (Burnet 2001: 436). The Court also reasoned that the Territory Clause2 of the U.S. Constitution conferred Congress nearly absolute power to govern the territories. Although some sectors of the political spectrum of Puerto Rico argue that the Territory Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not apply to the Island, the U.S. Department of the Interior firmly maintains that it does (Trías 1999: 198). The Insular Cases left the status of the new territories unresolved and in the case of both Puerto Rico and Guam (also acquired in 1898), it remains so today (Burnet 2001: 437). Shortly after the acquisition of Puerto Rico, the United States installed a military government in the island. The military government lasted until 1900. That year the U.S. Congress passed the Foraker Act 3, which established a civilian government in Puerto

1 The Insular Cases consist of a series of United States Supreme Court decisions made between 1901 and 1922. The leading case, Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), contains the most detailed explanations of the Court’s holdings regarding the status of the new territories, set forth in Justice Edward Douglas White’s concurrence, which was eventually endorsed by a unanimous Supreme Court in Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922). See Burnett, C. 2001. Island Limbo: The Case of Puerto Rican Decolonization. Foreign Policy Research Institute. 43(3): 433-452. 2 The Article IV Section 3, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Territory Clause, states that the Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State. 3 On April 2, 1900, U.S. President McKinley signed a civil law that established a civilian government in Puerto Rico. This law was known as the Foraker Act for its sponsor,

40 Rico, with a governor and an executive council (appointed by the President of the United States), a legislature, a judicial system, and a non-voting Resident Commissioner in Congress. Under the Foraker Act, all Federal laws were to be enforced on the island. Consequently the administration of Puerto Rico was assigned to the Bureau of Insular Affairs4 of the U.S. War Department. In 1934, the Bureau's functions for Puerto Rico were transferred to the Division of Territories and Island Possessions (later the Office of Territories and still later the Office of Territorial Affairs) within the Department of the Interior. In 1917 Congress passed the Jones-Shafroth Act5. This Act established the island as an “organized but unincorporated” territory of the United States and granted U.S. citizenship to Puerto Ricans. This Act also cleared the way for U.S. Congress’ approval in 1947 of a law allowing the election of the governor by the people of Puerto Rico. On November 2, 1948, an island-born Puerto Rican became the first governor elected by the Puerto Rican electorate. However, under the Jones Act, the United States Congress had the authority to stop actions taken by the island governor and legislature, and maintained control over economic, defense, and other basic governmental affairs. The Jones-Shafroth Act was a major change in the island and led to considerable repercussions in the mainland. This Act not only made Puerto Ricans U.S. citizens with the right to freely move between the island and the mainland, but it also formalized U.S. influences over Puerto Rico and its people. Everyday life in Puerto Rico, from its formal and informal social structures, was greatly affected. The U.S. government not only took over the island’s government, but its power and influence also reached matters of education, health, infrastructure, and economy. This situation added a new layer to the

Joseph Benson Foraker (an Ohio congressman), and also as the Organic Act of 1900. The new government had a governor and an executive council appointed by the President, a House of Representatives with 35 elected members, a judicial system with a Supreme Court, and a non-voting Resident Commissioner in Congress. 4 The Bureau of Insular Affairs was a division of the U.S. War Department that oversaw United States administration of certain territories from 1902 until the 1930s. 5 On March 2, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Jones-Shafroth Act. This law gave Puerto Ricans U.S. citizenship. The Jones Act separated the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches of Puerto Rican government, provided civil rights to the individual, and created a locally elected bicameral legislature. The two houses were a Senate consisting of 19 members and a 39-member House of Representatives.

41 national identity of the island (González 1998), new elements and complexity for Puerto Ricans to pick from when trying to make sense of their selves. The United States-Puerto Rico relationship dramatically changed in the 1950s. On July 3, 1950, the U.S. Congress passed Public Law 600 (known as the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act), giving Puerto Rico the right to establish a government and a constitution for the internal administration of the Puerto Rico government and “on matters of purely local concern” (García 1996). This act expressly upholds the terms of the Jones Act of 1917 that regulated the relationships between Puerto Rico and the United States. As a result of the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act, on July 25, 1952 Puerto Rico inaugurated its own constitution under the existing commonwealth status. After Puerto Rico attained Commonwealth status in 1952, United States-Puerto Rico relations changed again. The administration of the island was removed from the Office of Territorial Affairs of the Department of the Interior since Puerto Rico was declared a self-governing territory. However, since 1952 relations between Puerto Rico and the U.S. are conducted under the jurisdiction of the Office of the President, and all policy matters concerning the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are under the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources6. Currently Commonwealth status, and therefore the United States-Puerto Rico relationship, are being contested both inside and outside the island. The debate is rooted in the arguments that the United States never set in motion a process of self- determination leading to the full decolonization of Puerto Rico. Therefore, in terms of preparation for independence, the Island is not comparable to the former British colonies and current possessions in the Caribbean; on matters of admission to the Union, Puerto Rico has been surpassed by the French territories; in terms of autonomy, Puerto Rico is far behind the Dutch Antilles. The Island has become seriously dependent on the United

6 Jurisdiction of the Committee includes oversight and legislative responsibilities for: National Energy Policy, including international energy affairs and emergency preparedness; nuclear waste policy; privatization of federal assets; territorial policy (including changes in status and issues affecting Antartica); Native Hawaiian matters; and Ad Hoc issues. [In addition, other issues are retained in the Full Committee on an ad hoc basis. Generally, these are issues which (1) require extremely expeditious handling or (2) substantially overlap two or more subcommittee jurisdictions, or (3) are of exceptional national significance in which all Members wish to participate fully.]

42 States: 48 percent of Puerto Ricans, 45 percent of families, 44 percent of persons 65 years and older, and almost 60 percent of children in Puerto Rico live below the poverty level7. The per capita income of the Island is still about a third of the per capita income of the United States, and half of per capita income of Mississippi, which ranks 50th among the states in per capita income. As well, eleven island groups in the Caribbean currently have a higher per capita income than Puerto Rico: the Cayman Islands, Aruba, Montserrat, the Bahamas, Martinique, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the British Virgin Islands, the Netherlands Antilles, Guadalupe, and Barbados (Kurlansky 1992). Consequently, Puerto Rico is still a colony of the United States, over which the Government of the United States claims and exercises absolute sovereignty, legislates and in other ways acts over the island without its consent, and systematically ignores referendum results (Trías 1999: 179). However, the U.S. Government and the Island’s pro-commonwealth advocates claim that the creation of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in 1952, which gave Puerto Rico self- government, solved the colonial condition of the Island. Contrary to this argument, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided to give Puerto Ricans U.S. citizenship in 1917, they clearly stated that such an action would not make Puerto Rico part of the United States. Puerto Ricans were made U.S. citizens in order to affirm the permanent presence of the United States in the Island and to discourage the pro-independence sentiments that were rising (Trías 1999: 79). The current discussion over Commonwealth status shows that United States- Puerto Rico relations are still far from being resolved. The U.S. Congress firmly stated that the approval of the new status did not make any changes to the current relationship between both island and mainland. On the contrary, with the approval of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Congress did not give up any of its powers over the Island (in accordance to the Territory Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the sovereignty powers acquired with the Treaty of Paris), and under any circumstances that status does not mean a pact (Trías 1999: 149). In the face of this reality, there have been efforts to take the case of the United States-Puerto Rico relationship to the General Assembly of the United Nations. Such attempts intended to discuss the case of Puerto Rico within the dispositions of the U.N.

7 Based on the 2000 US Census results.

43 Resolution 1514 (XV). The resolution 1514 (XV), also known as the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, elevated to human rights states the principle of self-determination, proclaiming “the necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations. According to the U.N., “all people have the right to self-determination to freely determine their political status” without any pretext, and that “immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories.”8 Such attempts to discuss the case of Puerto Rico within the dispositions of the resolution have never been successful, meaning that the case of the United States-Puerto Rico relationship has never been discussed by the U.N. General Assembly. This is in part because of the arguments made by the United States that Puerto Rico already exercised its right to self- determination in 1952 with the approval of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; therefore, as of November 27, 1953, the United States stopped reporting the situation of the island to the United Nations. That same day the U.N. General Assembly approved the list of factors to determine when a colony would reach self-government; the case of Puerto Rico was never analyzed using those criteria. However, based on those criteria, Commonwealth status as a form of self-determination and decolonization fails to comply with the requirements of international law as defined by the U.N. General Assembly (Berríos 1977: 575). Nonetheless, on repeated occasions other countries have presented motions to include the case of Puerto Rico in the General Assembly agenda, but the motion has always been defeated based on arguments presented by United States that such action constitutes an interference in its internal affairs. Commonwealth status has added more complexity to the interpretations of the island-mainland relationship. For both the United States and Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth status located the island in some sort of third-space; “neither here not there but something else besides, in-between” (Bhabha 1994: 219). In certain aspects the United States treats Puerto Rico as “domestic”, but in most matters it refers to Puerto Rico as “foreign”. This has let Puerto Ricans to construct national identities as something

8 United Nations, resolution adopted by the General Assembly during its 15th session, 947th plenary meeting, December 14, 1960.

44 different from “American”, but at the same time as “also-Americans”: a national identity highly based on place, symbols, and the construction of a collective memory that extends far beyond the island’s boundaries. Therefore, defining Puerto Ricanness is a highly contested task, saturated with complexity and hybridity.

The Status Dilemma The current Commonwealth status of Puerto Rico has failed to clarify United States-Puerto Rico relations. On the contrary, it has added more complexity. The ambiguous nature of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has led to questions concerning the existence of a Puerto Rican nation, and therefore, to different interpretations of Puerto Ricanness. In this context, the formation of a Puerto Rican identity has been directly influenced by the island’s historical relation with the U.S., and more so by its political dimensions. The political debate in Puerto Rico is present in the everyday popular discourse of the island. The island’s political system is arranged around its status. The three existing political parties in the island were founded to respond to the status issue, each representing a different status option (i.e., statehood, commonwealth, and independence), but also promoting their own interpretation of Puerto Ricanness. Therefore, the analysis of electoral events in Puerto Rico has to be done with care. Such results are not a superficial figure of Puerto Ricans’ preferences for a government or particular option, but they also reflect how Puerto Ricans in the island interpret the concept of national identity. Puerto Ricans not only vote for political parties and candidates, they also vote for ideological options with different interpretations of Puerto Rico and its people as a collective group. A close examination of such electoral events leads to a better understanding of how Puerto Ricans are making sense of themselves. In this context, there are some electoral events with more significance than others, those being the status referendums of 1967, 1993, and 1998, which were the most relevant events in matters of national identity and political definition. In the 1967status referendum, the commonwealth option prevailed with 60 percent of the votes, against 39 percent for statehood and one percent for independence (Table 3). The pro-commonwealth vote dominated municipalities of the

45 Island, obtaining more than 50 percent of support in most of them. However, the Puerto Rican Independence Party’s boycott and the Statehood Republican Party’s internal division set the stage for the victory of the commonwealth option.

Table 3: Status Referendums Results Source: Comisión Estatal de Elecciones de Puerto Rico Year Commonwealth StatehoodIndependence Free None of the Association Above 1967 60% 39% 1% - - 1992 49% 46% 4% - - 1998 0.1% 47% 3% 0.3% 50%

The 1993 referendum showed a changing pattern. Even though the commonwealth option prevailed, its margin of support decreased dramatically since the 1967. On the other hand, the statehood option increased significantly in popularity. Likewise, the difference in support between the commonwealth and statehood was closer in comparison to the 1967 referendum. In the case of the independence option, there were significant changes. Independence increased significantly from barely one percent to four percent, although it remained a tiny minority. In Puerto Rico both the local government and United States Government have persecuted those who support the independence option (Berríos 1977; Trías 1999). Systematic vigilance against and repression of independence supporters were common practices, simultaneously with an exaggerated and unrealistic fear campaign conducted among the population against independence (Trías 1999; Acosta 1987). The fact that the independence movement has resisted and survived all those obstacles for so long is a demonstration of its strength. Finally, the 1998 referendum deviated from the electoral patterns found in the previous two referendums. Held several months after Hurricane Georges devastated the Island, and with the strong opposition of the pro-commonwealth party, the population was not enthusiastic about the election. A lack of enthusiasm was demonstrated by the referendum’s low voter turnout rate (71%) when compared to other recent Puerto Rican elections (Table. 4).

Table 4: Electoral Participation Source: Comisión Estatal de Elecciones de Puerto Rico Year Percent of Voters 1980 78 1984 89 1988 85

1992 85 1993 (Referendum) 74 1996 83 1998 (Referendum) 71 2000 82 2004 81

In the 1998 referendum, 50 percent of the voters voted for “None of the Above”, a fifth option supported by those who were opposed to conducting the referendum. The PPD (pro-Commonwealth status Popular Democratic Party) made a call to vote for “the option of the people”, None of the Above. In the commonwealth v. statehood v. independence referenda, the pro-commonwealth party (opposed to the Commonwealth definition on the ballot) managed to divert the debate and convert the referendum into a punishment vote for the government. Regardless of this, the statehood option maintained its support (47 percent). Likewise, independence got three percent, commonwealth (as appeared in the ballot) .1 percent, and “none of the above” obtained 50 percent, just one percent more than the commonwealth option obtained in the 1993 referendum. Most choices in politics are framed in terms of a new proposal being pitted against the status quo, and in such a situation the status quo is at an advantage (Christin, Hug, and Sciarini 2002: 764). In Puerto Rico, the commonwealth option has an advantage for those uncertain of whether the new political status options will achieve their goals. However there is enough evidence to state that political status preferences are changing. The three referendums demonstrated the shift in the voting behavior on Puerto Rico. Currently the popularity of the commonwealth status is in decline, while support for statehood has been rising. Commonwealth popularity has gone from 60 percent of votes in 1967 to .1 percent in 1998, while statehood has gone from 39 percent of support

47 in 1967 to 47 percent in 1998. Likewise independence went form one percent of support in 1967 to a three percent in 1998. But if we take out the 1998 results, since the commonwealth supporters boycotted the commonwealth option and instead voted for None of the Above, the same pattern can be seen. As well, if we add the percentage of None of the Above (50 percent) with the percentage of commonwealth (.1 percent), it would still suggest a decline in Commonwealth support (Figure 2). This view stands in contrast to the increased support for statehood. These patterns can also be seen in the results of general elections (Figure 3). In Puerto Rico, the elections are intimately related to the question of political status. The three political parties (the pro-statehood New Progressive Party or PNP, the pro- commonwealth Popular Democratic Party or PPD, and the pro-independence Puerto Rican Independence Party or PIP) promote different political status. The general elections are dominated by status issues, and the status referendum campaigns in turn are dominated by the political parties. As LeDuc (2002: 715) stated, “the positions that political parties take, either in the evolution of the referendum issue or during the campaign itself, provide one of the strongest available information cues to voters.” The political debate in Puerto Rico is intimately related with questions of national identity, as the island’s electoral results show the political future of Puerto Rico is still uncertain. Each sector of the political spectrum in Puerto Rico has a different perception of the terms “nation” and “national identity”. Consequently, there are various definitions of Puerto Ricanness. Each political faction promotes its own definition to advance their agenda. On one side, the pro-independence sector promotes the sense of a Puerto Rican nation, a group completely different from the U.S. with its own symbols, language, and a particular identity based on Latin Americanist rhetoric. On the other side, pro-statehood supports promote a collective identity as an integral part of the United States. They deny the existence of a Puerto Rican nation, emphasizing Puerto Ricanness as an element of diversity within the American nation. In the middle of the spectrum is the pro- commonwealth sector. This sector acknowledges the existence of the Puerto Rican nation, but as a nation within another nation. They promote a cultural nationalism completely divorced from any notion of political nationalism. Therefore, they are

48 engaged in the construction and promotion of a Puerto Rican identity that is culturally different from the American identity, but socially, economically, and politically integrated to the U.S., or as they describe it: “having the best of the two worlds”. This reality makes the electoral system in Puerto Rico a battleground not only for the definition of the island’s political relations with the U.S., but also for the definition of their collective identity as a people.

70 60 s 50 40 30 20 Percent of Voter 10 0 _1967 _1992 _1998

Commonwealth Statehood Independence Figure 2: Status Referendums Source: Comisión Estatal de Elecciones de Puerto Rico

49 70

Percent of Voters 20

0 _1942 _1952 _1956 _1960 _1964 _1968 _1972 _1976 _1980 _1984 _1988 _1992 _1996 _2000 _2004

PPD PNP* PIP Figure 3: General Election Results Source: Comisión Estatal de Elecciones de Puerto Rico *before, Statehood Republican Party

Debate in the United States The debates over Puerto Rico take place on two different fronts, those in the island and those in Congress and the U.S. Government. The United States-Puerto Rico relationship has been debated in the U.S. Congress on four occasions: in 1943, 1989, 1996, and in 2008. However, as in the case of the status referenda held in the island, the first three debates failed to successfully set in motion a process of Puerto Rican self- determination. Congress’s lack of interest and serious commitment to deal with Puerto Rico’s situation resulted in the failure of the bills presented regarding Puerto Rico’s status. The first attempt to discuss United States-Puerto Rico relations in the U.S. Congress was in 1943. That time, U.S. Senator Millard Tydings introduced a bill in Congress calling for independence for Puerto Rico. This bill ultimately was defeated. In 1989, the presidents of the three political parties in Puerto Rico (among them the governor of Puerto Rico) wrote a letter to President George H. W. Bush demanding a

50 response to the island’s status. As a result, President Bush instructed Congress to take action. Democrat Senator Bennett Johnston from Louisiana presented in the Senate S. 712, the “Puerto Rico Status Referendum Act”. The bill was referred to a Senate Committee, where it died in 1991; it never made it to the floor to be considered and voted upon. The third attempt to discuss Puerto Rico’s status in Congress was in 1996. Contrary to 1989, this time the initiative originated in Congress. On this occasion the Republican leaders of the House, through the chair of the U.S. House Committee of Energy and Natural Resources, Congressman Don Young from Alaska, presented H.R. 856, the “United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act”. The House approved the bill by one vote, after an overnight session and a heated debate. However, the bill was not passed by the Senate; it did not even make it to the floor for consideration, as was the case of the S. 712 in 1989. More recently, discussions over the political status of Puerto Rico have reemerged in Congress. This time Congressional action has responded to the White House’s report released in December 2005 by the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status. This report formally recognized for the first time that the current political arrangement of Puerto Rico is territorial and colonial. However, the significance of the report resides on the recommendations it makes to Congress in terms of the steps they should follow to set in motion a process of self-determination leading to the full decolonization of Puerto Rico. One of those recommendations is that another status referendum in the island be held. According to the White House’s report, such a referendum has to be initiated in Congress, offering only two options, statehood or independence, as the final and permanent formula for the solution of Puerto Rico’s status situation. Such a Congressional referendum, with the options that the United States is “willing” to offer, is not just unprecedented but also represents a formal statement on the United States’ position regarding the case of Puerto Rico and the nearly eight million Puerto Ricans who live both on the Island and within the United States. Following the report’s recommendations, Congress is debating possible legislation to address the political situation of Puerto Rico.

51 Soon after the White House’s report was released, the political parties in Puerto Rico started to pressure Congress. Several bills were introduced in Congress for this purpose. Of these, three bills are worthy of mention. The first two have been introduced in the Senate. These two bills aim to obtain the same goal, but through different interpretations and methods. The first one, designed and supported by the ruling pro- commonwealth party in Puerto Rico, discards the White House’s recommendations of a referendum only offering statehood and independence. This bill does not contemplate a referendum or any further debate over Puerto Rico’s status. Rather it proposes that Puerto Ricans should decide first internally the course they want to follow. Needless to say, this bill follows the pro-commonwealth sector’s interpretation of nation and national identity regarding Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans. The second bill is the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2007 introduced by Senators Mel Martínez from Florida and Ken Salazar from Colorado. This bill follows the recommendations of the Presidential Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status. It would designate a deadline for a federally-sanctioned process to occur that will provide an opportunity for Puerto Ricans to choose whether they would like to maintain their present status, seek independence, become a State, or become a nation in free association with the United States. On the other hand, the third bill has been introduced in the House. This bill was designed by the pro-statehood party with some support of the pro-independence party. This is the House’s version of the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2007 introduced in the Senate by Senators Martínez and Salazar. This bill also follows the recommendations of the Presidential Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status and calls for a Congressional status referendum in the island offering only statehood or independence. At this time all bills are still in the early stages, as none have been formally discussed on the House or Senate floors. This last bill is important in terms of this dissertation because it includes the question of whether Puerto Ricans living in the United States should be included in any consideration regarding the final decision about the island. However, the complexity with this consideration is how will Congress decide who is Puerto Rican, or, what makes someone Puerto Rican? In that regard and as part of the current Congressional debate, Congressman José Serrano from New York (born in Puerto Rico) has argued that all

52 persons who were born on the island should participate in any potential mechanism to solve Puerto Rico’s status issue. On the other hand, Congressman Luis Gutiérrez from Chicago (born in the United States, first generation of Puerto Rican immigrants) has argued that all persons of Puerto Rican descent, whether born on the island or on the mainland, should be included in any decision regarding the political future of Puerto Rico.

Conclusion The discussions taking place in the U.S. Congress over Puerto Rico’s political situation are charged with issues involving the negotiation and renegotiation of different perceptions of Puerto Ricanness. These discussions, besides dealing with the issue of defining the Island’s political future, have been broadened to include issues of Puerto Rican identity. In the event of any decision taken by Congress on the situation of Puerto Rico, Puerto Ricans will have to make a decision not just for a political status option, but also for a definition of their collective identity. What this debate is doing is putting in motion a process of identity construction for Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico, but more importantly in the United States. The controversy rests on interpretations of Puerto Ricanness. In other words, the debate raises considerations of how Puerto Ricans in the United States define the boundaries of belonging that construct their collective identity (or identities). This is a question that Puerto Ricans in the mainland, especially Florida’s Puerto Ricans, are involved with when trying to negotiate their identity, as they meet with different perception of Puerto Ricanness in the new setting that the Orlando metropolitan area has provided them.

CHAPTER V

PUERTO RICAN MIGRATION TO THE U.S.

Over the past century, millions of Puerto Ricans have migrated to the United States. The 2006 American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau estimated the population of Puerto Rico at 3,927,776 and the number of Puerto Ricans living in the United States at 3,987,947 (Table 5). According to these numbers, currently there are more Puerto Ricans living outside of Puerto Rico than those living in the island. This situation has given place to a diasporic community larger than the total population of the island. Therefore, defining Puerto Ricanness is a process that reaches far beyond the island’s boundaries.

Table 5: Puerto Rican Population in the Island and the United States Source: U.S. Census Bureau Year Puerto Rico United States

1940 1,869,255 69,967

1950 2,210,703 301,375 1960 2,349,544 887,662

1970 2,712,033 1,492,396 1980 3,196,520 2,013,945 1990 3,522,037 2,727,754

2000 3,808,610 3,406,178

2006 3,927,776 3,987,947

Puerto Rican migration to the United States resulted from the long lasting relations between the island and the mainland. The United States’ political and economic interventions in Puerto Rico created the conditions for such movement between both territories. As a consequence, to use Duany’s words (2002), Puerto Rico became a nation

54 on the move, building a national identity composed of many layers of diverse implications. Puerto Rican migration to the United States has been chronologically and qualitatively determined by different phases. The first significant movement of people from the island to the mainland occurred after World War II. During this phase, Puerto Ricans migrated in large numbers to the New York City area, where they were used as unskilled labor. This migration was in part an outcome of the political changes taking place in the island due to the reconfiguring of United States-Puerto Rico relations occurring at that time. The second phase occurred during the 1960s and 1970s. During this period Puerto Rican flows to the mainland continued, but a significant return migration to the island also took place. In this period the Puerto Rican migration dispersed to other urban centers along the East Coast and the Midwest. The final phase can be traced from the 1980s to the present. During this phase an increase in migration to the United States taken place. Also, the destinations for Puerto Ricans have changed, showing a nationwide diversification. However, during the current migration one destination stands out for the rapid growth of its Puerto Rican population, that being Central Florida.

In this chapter, I provide a portrait of the three most important waves of Puerto Rican immigration to the United States. First, I examine early Puerto Rican immigration after the end of the World War II until the 1950s. Second, I look at Puerto Rican migration to the United States that took place in the 1960s and 1970s. Finally, I explore Puerto Rican migration after the 1980s to the present. In the final section I examine Florida’s Puerto Rican migration, specifically to the Orlando metropolitan area. Each period represent immigrants with different social, educational and economic backgrounds.

First Immigration Wave, 1945-1950s Puerto Ricans have been migrating to the mainland since the island became a possession of the United States. By the first decades of the 1900s, Puerto Ricans were being hired to work as seasonal workers as far away as Hawaii (Rosario 1983; Maldonado-Denis 1980; Mintz 1955). Ten years later, after Puerto Rico’s takeover by the

55 U.S., the 1910 U.S. census estimated the Puerto Rican population on the mainland at 1,500. These numbers increased even more after the approval of the Jones Shafroth Act of 1917 that established the island as an organized but unincorporated territory of the United States and granted U.S. citizenship to Puerto Ricans. This act facilitated the movement of labor to the mainland, significantly raising the net migration from the island to the mainland in the 1920s (Table 6). However, the peak period of migration began with the end of World War II. During this period, the Puerto Rican community grew to more than half a million.

Table 6: Net Emigration from Puerto Rico Sources: The data from 1900-70 are from Vázquez 1988; the data for 1970 to 2000 are from the U.S. Census Bureau. Net number of Out- Year Migrants 1900-10 2,000

1910-20 11,000 1920-30 42,000 1930-40 18,000 1940-50 151,000 1950-60 470,000 1960-70 214,000 1970-80 65,817

1980-90 116,571 1990-2000 242,973

By 1930, there were over 50,000 Puerto Ricans residing on the mainland, and by 1940 the U.S. Census counted almost 70,000. During this period, Puerto Rican immigrants were coming to the mainland by ships such as the SS Marine Tiger that sailed between San Juan and New York. Between 1900 and 1940, there was a net outflow of 73,000 persons from the island, an average of 1,825 emigrants per year (Rivera-Batiz and Santiago 1996: 45). However, the largest numbers of immigrants came about in the 1950s in what became known as "The Great Migration" with the advent of air travel. During this period, the average annual net outflow was 47,000 (Rivera-Batiz and Santiago 1990: 45). In the 1950s a one-way ticket from San Juan to New York could be bought for less

56 than $50, and installment plans were made available to those without enough resources to purchase a ticket (Marquez 2004). Also, the Puerto Rican government allowed small local airlines to drive down air fares by providing them with a series of incentives. Of particular importance was the establishment of a new airline, Trans Caribbean, traveling between San Juan and New York, created to fulfill the demands of this large-scale migration. As a result, in 1950 the Puerto Rican population on the mainland surpassed the 300,000 mark.

The magnitude of this migration during this period has been attributed to many different reasons. First, a post-war booming economy with relative prosperity available in the United States and lower travel costs between the island and the mainland prompted this wave of migration. Second, the limited employment opportunities in Puerto Rico and the lure of plentiful, low skilled, manufacturing jobs in New York City served as push- pull factors for the island-mainland migration. Third, the mass migration was also a response to an induced migration launched by the ruling Popular Democratic Party (pro- Commonwealth). That government-induced migration was sustained by an argument that the island had a problem of overpopulation that was reflected in the labor surplus and high unemployment rates during that time (Daniel 2000: 8; Whalen 2005: 7). Most of these migrants settled in New York City and served as bridges for future immigrants (Fitzpatrick 1987; Waters 1990).

As part of this induced migration, in 1947 the legislature of Puerto Rico passed legislation to determine the public policy of the government of Puerto Rico as regards migration to the mainland. The policy determined that the government of Puerto Rico would assist emigrants in the resolution of their employment and adjustment problems in the mainland (Earnhardt 1982: 47). This policy led to the creation of the Employment and Migration Bureau of the Puerto Rico Department of Labor. This division was responsible for the establishment in 1948 of a migration office in New York City to help Puerto Ricans find jobs and facilitate the migration process.

During this period, many important events took place changing Puerto Rico’s economic and social situation. The economic development of Puerto Rico was promoted in large part by the shift from an agricultural economy to an industrial economic system.

57 Since the 1930s, the United States had established federal funds transfer programs like the “Puerto Rico Emergency Relief Association” and the “Puerto Rico Reconstruction Agency” to improve the island’s infrastructure, prevent diseases that affected the population, and to reinforce military structures in the island (Rivera-Batiz and Santiago 1990). In 1934, the Chardón Plan was established with the objective of restructuring Puerto Rico’s economy; it was intended to work against the monopoly of sugar industries and promote the local “criollo”1 entrepreneurs. This plan also promoted migration towards tropical regions similar to Puerto Rico but with less population, like Hawaii (Rosario 1983).

Nonetheless, "The Great Migration” led to the creation of Puerto Rican "Barrios" in New York City’s South Bronx, Spanish Harlem, Manhattan's Lower East Side, and Brooklyn's Atlantic Street. These barrios began to resemble a "Little Puerto Rico" characterized by Puerto Rican ways and customs.

Second Immigration Wave, 1960s-1970s During the 1960s and 1970s, the migration flow from the island to the mainland took other forms. At this time a drastic decrease in the outflow of migrants from the island to the mainland and a rapid increase of return migration to Puerto Rico occurred. Consequently, beginning in 1965, Puerto Rican migration was characterized by continuous back and forth movement between the island and the mainland (Lorenzo- Hernández 1999: 989). This transformed the Puerto Rican migration into circular (Hernández-Cruz 1985), commuting (Torres et al. 1994), revolving (Rodríguez 1989), and returning (Johnson 1982; Ortíz 1986; Rivera-Batiz and Santiago 1990; Lorenzo- Hernández 1999; Pérez 2005) patterns.

In the 1960s, when economic conditions in Puerto Rico improved, many Puerto Ricans residing in the U.S. returned to the island, although a large number continued to migrate to the mainland (Ortíz 1986: 613). At the time the island experienced higher minimum wages, more federal funds transfers and programs such as Welfare and

1 The term Criollo was introduced during the colonial time to label all persons of European and African decent born in the “New World”. Eventually the terms was used to distinguish the natives of the former colonies.

58 Medicaid. On the other hand, the displacement of manufacturing centers to several underdeveloped countries that took place at this time caused the loss of a significant number of jobs for Puerto Ricans on the mainland. These, in large part, were the factors stimulating Puerto Ricans to return to the island during this period. This return migration increased dramatically by the early 1970s and in some years even surpassed emigration from the island; a trend that continued through the early 1980s (Pérez 2005: 185).

During the 1960s and 1970s close to 300,000 return migrants arrived in Puerto Rico (Table 7). San Juan International Airport became one of the most frequently used terminals in the world (Hernández 1967: 13). The movement from and to the island during this period reached millions annually. The return migration peaked in the 1970s, and it is estimated that during this period alone, over 137,000 Puerto Ricans returned from the United States. At this time, more people were moving into Puerto Rico than were moving out (Rivera-Batiz and Santiago 1990: 55). In 1972, for example, the numbers of returning migrants outnumbered emigrants by 21,297 (Hernández-Cruz 1994).

Table 7: Return Migrants to Puerto Rico Sources: U.S. Census Bureau. Year Return Migrants 1950s 34,000

1960s 129,105 1970s 137,474 1990s 79,956

This return migration had economic and social impacts in the island. Return migrants were mostly unskilled workers with substantially lower educational attainment who had met with little success in the mainland labor market (Rivera-Batiz and Santiago 1990). By 1975 about 20 percent of the population of Puerto Rican origin living in the mainland completed less than five years of school, and less than 30 percent completed

59 four years of high school or more2. This low-educated and unskilled population composed the majority of the migrants returning to the island, creating a surplus of low educated and unskilled workers in the island.

Also, at this time a substantial second generation of Puerto Ricans had already emerged (Hernández 1967: 3). These second generation Puerto Ricans were among the return migrants that came to the island during this period of mass return migration from the mainland to the island. Many Puerto Rican migrants had children and raised them in the mainland. The second generation population presented differences from their counterparts in the island due to their exposure to the values and customs of other dominant groups on the mainland. In most cases, they did not speak Spanish or spoke it with difficulty, often mixing English and Spanish in what became known as “Spanglish” (Maldonado-Denis 1980; Kaplan 1982). Consequently, these second generation Puerto Ricans returning to the island were considered to have different cultural values, life styles, attitudes and social behavior (Claudio 1983: 2).

The large-scale return migration to Puerto Rico slowed in the 1980s. However, regardless of the impressive numbers of return migrants, the U.S. census shows that at the end of this immigration wave there were close to 1,500,000 people of Puerto Rican birth or parentage living in the United States. Also, close to the end of this immigration wave, Puerto Ricans living in the United States who gained economic success began to move away from the "Barrios" of East Harlem and the Bronx in New York City and settled in Queens and Long Island or moved to other cities in other states. Among the states that received large Puerto Rican migrants were New Jersey, Florida, Illinois and California.

Third Immigration Wave, 1980s-2008 From the 1980s to the present, an increase in migration to the United States has been taking place. These new migrants are characterized by significant improvements in their education, acquiring managerial, professional, technical, sales and administrative positions, with higher wages than previous migrants. They have also demonstrated

2 US Census Bureau 1975, Persons of Spanish Origin in the United States, Series p-20, No. 283, table 4.

60 dispersion patterns outside of the northeast of the United States, reaching to the South and West in states like Florida, California, and Texas. In the 1980s over 400,000 Puerto Ricans left the island for the mainland. 12.3 percent of the Puerto Rican population that had resided on the island in 1980 were no longer living there in 1990 (Rivera-Batiz and Santiago 1990: 46). Puerto Ricans’ net migration to the mainland increased during this time period, reaching 126,465 in the 1980s and 111,336 in the 1990s. The combined total of these numbers represented over a quarter of a million people, or more than 7 percent of the island’s population in 1980 (Marquez 2004).

This third wave migration to the mainland was again induced by changes in both wages and unemployment differentials between Puerto Rico and the United States. At this time, the majority of emigrants were skilled and fairly highly educated, such as professional and technical workers. Among the most visible groups of workers emigrating from the island were nurses, doctors, and engineers. These specific groups emigrated due to higher wages and improved employment opportunities for those occupations in the United States (Rivera-Batiz 1989: 10).

According to the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, Puerto Ricans in the United States currently are doing better economically than those residing in Puerto Rico. This study concluded that the average annual income of stateside Puerto Ricans was 2.5 times higher than the average annual income for Puerto Ricans on the island. Likewise, the median household income for stateside Puerto Ricans is almost double the household income for those on the island. This difference presents an important incentive for island-based Puerto Rican to emigrate to the mainland, even more when it is estimated that the cost of living on the island is higher than in many areas of the mainland (Marquez 2004).

Similarly, Puerto Ricans living on the mainland show slightly higher levels of education than their counterparts on the island. According to the U.S. Census, in the year 2000 nearly 67 percent of Puerto Ricans age 25 and older on the United States had completed high school or a higher level of education, compared with less than 60 percent on the island. Likewise, the poverty rates for Puerto Ricans residing on the mainland

61 were 26 percent, compared with 48 percent on the island. These numbers suggest that the current emigration from Puerto Rico to the United States is composed of a different population, in matters of economic and social conditions, compared to the earlier flows from the island to the mainland.

From 1990 to 2000 the Puerto Rican population in the United States increased faster than the population on the Island. Between 1990 and 2000, the population of mainland Puerto Ricans grew by 25 percent while the island population increased by approximately 10 percent (Marquez 2004). Currently, the 2006 U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey estimated the island population of 3,927,776 and the mainland Puerto Ricans of 3,987, 947. Acording to these numbers, at present for the first time there are more Puerto Ricans living in the mainland United States than on the island.

Historically, Puerto Ricans in the United States concentrated in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, and other Northeastern and Midwestern states. However, during this last emigration wave the mainland Puerto Rican population started to disperse to a greater degree than in the previous emigrations movements. Consequently, the proportion of Puerto Ricans significantly increased in other states such as Florida (with the greatest increase), Texas, and California (Table 8). Yet, regardless of the fact that New York still has the largest percentage of Puerto Rican residents in the U.S., over the last decade, the number of Puerto Ricans living in New York decreased significantly, down by nearly 100,000 (see Table 1), accounting now for only 37 percent out of the 80 percent Puerto Ricans once accounted for the city’s Hispanic population3.

The case of Florida stands out from the others. The growth of Florida’s Puerto Rican population has been spectacular, from slightly more than two percent of all stateside Puerto Ricans in 1960 to more than 17 percent by the year 2006 (Figure 4). These numbers placed Florida as the second largest concentration of Puerto Ricans in the United States and as the fastest growing Puerto Rican community.

3 Data form the New York City Department of City Panning

Table 8: Puerto Rican Population in Selected States, 2006 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2006 American Community Survey State Population New York 1,071,394 Florida 682,432 New Jersey 392,619 Pennsylvania 290,568 Massachusetts 226,892 Connecticut 221,658 Illinois 169,955 California 160,130

Texas 96,034 Ohio 69,657

700,000

600,000

500,000

400,000 300,000

200,000

100,000

0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2006

Figure 4: Growth of Florida’s Puerto Ricans, 1960-2006 Source: U.S. Census Bureau

63 Puerto Ricans now represent the second largest group of Hispanics in Florida, after Cubans, and the largest in Central Florida, particularly in the Orlando metropolitan area (Table 9). In the Orlando metropolitan area, Puerto Ricans represent well over 50 percent of all Hispanics. Between 1990 and 2000, the city of Orlando experienced the largest increase (142 percent) in the number of Puerto Ricans stateside (Falcón 2004: 6). Today, Orlando is the fourth-largest metropolitan area for Puerto Ricans in the United States, after such well-established centers of the diaspora as New York City, Philadelphia, and Chicago (Duany and Matos-Rodríguez 2006: 26). In Florida, Puerto Rican immigration has been present since the 1940s. At that time the first Puerto Ricans settled in the Miami area. The presence of these Puerto Ricans in south Florida was the result of the establishment of a Puerto Rican-owned sugar cane refinery (Central Fellsmore), as well as the Pan-American Bank in Miami. The pioneers of the Puerto Rican migration to Florida were a small number of business owners and some technical personnel, including engineers, mechanics, and electricians, (but not agricultural workers) from the island (Duany and Matos-Rodríguez 2006: 31). Therefore, the first Puerto Rican migrations to Florida were members of an economically privileged group.

Table 9: Hispanic Population in Counties Within the Orlando Metro Area, 2006. Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2006 American Community Survey Puerto South Central Counties Mexican Cuban Dominican Rican American American Lake 8,459 10,497 4,934 2,681 573 33 Orange 123,367 28,343 40,528 15,897 15,543 17,630 Osceola 60,257 4,068 12,578 6,371 4,110 6,400 Polk 21,467 39,772 3,302 4,523 7,146 1,440 Seminole 27,652 7,903 9,524 3,459 5,191 3,195 Total 241,202 90,583 70,866 32,931 32,563 28,698

The first large-scale movement of Puerto Ricans to Florida was different from the earlier group. This large-scale movement took place under the contract farm workers program sponsored by the Migration Division of Puerto Rico’s Department of Labor. Between the 1940s and 1960s, this program brought thousands of Puerto Ricans as farm

64 workers to the United States. At the same time, Florida also saw a significant group of Puerto Rican agricultural workers recruited by state agricultural business seeking cheap labor (Seidl, Shenk, and DeWind 1980). In 1953, about 3,000 Puerto Ricans, mostly seasonal workers specializing in the harvesting such crops as potatoes, beans, avocados, corn, tomatoes, and lettuce, were employed in Florida farms, representing one-fourth of all contract agricultural workers in the state (Cunningham 1953).

In the late 1960s, significant Puerto Rican migration to Central Florida began. By that time, hundreds of island-born Puerto Ricans had acquired properties near the Orlando area, with the media in the island saturated with advertisements announcing extremely cheap lots of land for sale in Central Florida (Duany and Matos-Rodríguez 2006: 34). At the time, Puerto Ricans were already informed of the scandal of real estate scams in Florida where individuals were sold swampland and other properties unfit for future construction and development. Thus, several real estate agencies paid for a group of Puerto Rican journalists to visit development projects in Central Florida to reassure potential buyers. Additionally, the opening of Walt Disney World (1971) promoted an increase in Puerto Rican real estate investments in the Orlando area (López 1968). Walt Disney World spurred real estate speculation in the region, and middle-class residents of the Island saw a lucrative investment opportunity there (Duany and Matos-Rodríguez 2006: 34). The Walt Disney World Corporation has been an active agent in the Puerto Rican migration to Central Florida. Disney has influenced the Puerto Rican real estate market and also has acted as a source of employment for Puerto Ricans. Since the 1990s, the Disney Co. has recruited workers outside the United States. Wanting employees who can speak Spanish, they have recruited in the Texas-Mexican border area and in Puerto Rico (Foglesong 2001: 183). In the case of Puerto Ricans, the Disney Co. offered potential employees a $900 incentive to help them relocate in Florida. Likewise, current cast members who notify the company of potential workers in Puerto Rico receive a monetary bonus (Foglesong 2001: 183). However, the large surge of Puerto Ricans from the island and the mainland started in the mid-1980s. At the time, small Puerto Rican enclaves were visible mainly in Orange and Osceola counties. Real estate agents actively promoted these enclaves to

65 potential homebuyers in Puerto Rico. Landstar Homes, a Miami-based real estate firm with offices in San Juan and New York and one of the largest developers in Central Florida, specialized in communities for middle-class residents. Example of such communities are Meadow Woods in Orange County and Buenaventura Lakes in Osceola County; currently the largest Puerto Rican enclave in Metro-Orlando and what has become to be known as “Orlando's Little Puerto Rico” (Ramos 2006). As a consequence, thousands of Puerto Ricans were introduced to Central Florida through the marketing efforts of real estate companies (Duany and Matos-Rodríguez 2006: 35). As well, Puerto Ricans were attracted to the Metro-Orlando area due to the lower cost of living as well as the absence of state income taxes. Therefore, more islanders seeking a better quality of life moved to Metro-Orlando motivated by both relatively affordable housing and because the rapid development of Central Florida’s Puerto Rican population made Metro-Orlando an area increasingly culturally and linguistically closer to the Island than New York, as well as other northeastern and midwestern states (Duany and Matos-Rodríguez 2006: 24). Therefore, Metro-Orlando became an attractive area to new Puerto Rican immigrants over other parts of Florida. Areas such as South Florida, which is heavily dominated by the Cuban community and has a considerable higher cost of living (Table 10), presented disencouraging elements for newcomers that favored Metro-Orlando as a destination place for Puerto Rican. Consequently, between 1990 and 2000 the city of Orlando experienced the largest increase (142 percent) in the number of Puerto Ricans stateside (Falcón 2004: 6). This massive immigration of Puerto Ricans to Central Florida, specifically to the Orlando Metropolitan area, is on-going and has only increased in recent years. Currently within Florida, Orange and Osceola counties are the two top destinations for Puerto Ricans. The Puerto Rican population in these two counties has increased tremendously over the past decade (Table 11). Even though Miami-Dade, Hillsborough, and Broward counties have large Puerto Rican concentrations, the growth rate for the Puerto Rican population in those counties does not match that of Orange and Osceola counties. The counties of Orange and Osceola have more than doubled their Puerto Rican population in a decade. From 1990 to 2006, Orange County added nearly

66 90,000 new Puerto Ricans, while Puerto Ricans in Osceola County increased by almost 53,000 in the same period.

Table 10: Cost of Living Index Source: ACCRA

Orlando Miami National 2004 2006 2008 2004 2006 2008 Average = 100 Composite Index 95.8 101.8 102.1 111.3 113.8 117.8 (100%) Grocery Items 98.1 95.2 106.5 103.9 104.8 105.1 (14%) Housing (29%) 92.1 102.5 93.5 131.2 135.4 144.4 Utilities (10%) 97.2 111.1 102.1 94.6 102.2 100.1 Transportation 100.0 105.1 105.5 104.7 115.0 107.7 (10%) Health Care 86.0 98.3 95.2 125.6 108.7 107.4 (4%) Misc. Goods and 97.7 100.4 108.1 101.2 103.5 108.4 Services (33%)

Likewise, proportionally Puerto Ricans represent a larger segment of the total Hispanics and of the total county population in Orange and Osceola (Table 12). In Osceola, Puerto Ricans represent 62 percent of all Hispanics living in that county, while Puerto Ricans in Orange County account for nearly half of the Hispanic population. Puerto Ricans also represent significant percentages of the Hispanic population in Volusia (50%), Seminole (47%), Brevard (40%), and Marion (37%) counties. However, regardless of the percentages in these counties, they do not compare with Orange and Osceola counties. Puerto Ricans not only outnumber all other Hispanics in Osceola and Orange counties, but they also account for 25 and 12 percent respectively of the total population of each county.

67 Table 11: Florida’s Puerto Rican Population in Selected Counties Source: U.S. Census Bureau % Increase County 1990 2000 2006 1990-2006 Orange 34,223 84,920 123,367 260 Miami-Dade 72,827 78,618 88,579 22 Hillsborough 25,080 51,507 69,568 177 Broward 26,933 54,395 68,695 155 Osceola 8,122 30,380 60,257 642 Palm Beach 12,366 24,599 31,758 157 Seminole 9,502 19,318 27,652 191 Volusia 5,992 13,398 24,485 309 Polk 3,408 10,539 21,467 530 Pinellas 5,675 12,407 17,665 211 Lee 5,155 11,565 17,221 234 Duval 5,309 11,387 13,924 162 Brevard 4,544 9,054 13,746 203 Pasco 2,654 6,507 11,235 323 Marion 2,527 6,882 10,063 298

Table 12: Percentage of Puerto Rican Population in Selected Counties Source: U.S. Census Bureau County % Total Population % Hispanic Population Osceola 25 62 Volusia 5 50 Orange 12 49 Seminole 7 47

Brevard 3 40

Marion 3 37

Duval 2 29

Pinellas 2 29

Pasco 2 27 Hillsborough 6 27 Polk 4 26 Lee 3 19 Broward 4 17 Palm Beach 2 15 Dade 4 6

68 Conclusion According to the U.S. Census projections, it is expected that the emigration trends to the United States will continue in such a way that during the next several decades the number of Puerto Ricans in the United States could double the number on the island. As for Florida, with such migration rates, the state will soon displace New York as the largest and most important concentration of Puerto Ricans on the mainland. This will make Central Florida, specifically the Orlando metropolitan area, the core of the Puerto Rican nation. Consequently, this Puerto Rican migration has caused the development of a diasporic community in the United States that embodies a significant portion of the Puerto Rican society. In that regard, these migration movements lie at the center of considerations of Puerto Rican identities. This diaspora raises questions of whether Puerto Rican identity should be defined strictly by the territorial boundaries of the island or beyond those, and whether there is one or many Puerto Rican identities.

CHAPTER VI

IDENTIFYING PUERTO RICANNESS

Identity refers to how we make sense of ourselves (Martin 2005; Castells 1997; Pile and Thrift 1995; Gregory 1995; Said 1978). Each individual potentially experiences a unique understanding of his or her surroundings, and this understanding is shaped by mental processes of information gathering and organization that make self-consciousness (Gold 1980). The categorization and labeling that “outsiders” give to demarcate and define groups’ boundaries is part of those processes. Identities are also the results of particular arrangements of power. Self- consciousness is inherently a claim for the power to depict group boundaries. Consequently, those who occupy positions of power typically have the authority to draw boundaries. In this sense, the ways in which people make sense of their lives is a necessary starting point for understanding how power relations structure society (Keith and Pile 1993: 95). In this chapter, I examine how Puerto Ricanness is constructed by the Puerto Rican community in the Orlando metropolitan area, and how different perceptions of Puerto Ricanness are negotiated and renegotiated over time. Today, Florida’s Puerto Rican population is over half a million, and nearly 40 percent of this population lives in Central Florida. However, the Metro-Orlando diaspora is being formed by both island- born and mainland-born Puerto Ricans. Each group comes with its own interpretations of Puerto Ricanness, each based on different origins, mode of economic, political and cultural incorporation, and values, traditions, beliefs and practices. These two groups use their similarities and differences to position themselves, but also to construct a community. My argument is that the Puerto Rican identity construction process in Metro- Orlando relies on notions of differences to build Puerto Ricanness. Therefore, I begin the chapter showing the general notions Puerto Ricans have regarding their Puerto Ricanness: what does Puerto Ricanness mean and what does it means to be a Puerto

70 Rican? Second, I discuss how language is being used to sustain such notions of difference among Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando. Finally, I elaborate on the notions of differences through the discussion of the perception that Puerto Ricans from the island are different from Puerto Ricans from the mainland U.S., and how such perceptions are creating boundaries of inclusion and exclusion in the community. To do this, I provide multiple views of Puerto Ricanness using voices from my interviewees.

Puerto Ricanness Regardless of their location inside or outside of Puerto Rico, Puerto Ricans show a strong sense of national identity. However, when it comes to defining their community, each Puerto Rican has his or her own interpretation and meanings. Like identity itself, Puerto Ricanness is far from being absolute, but rather is characterized by hybridity and complexity. As Cornell and Hartmann (1998: 73) put it, “identities are changeable, contingent, and diverse.” Identities are more than just labels; identities also involve people’s acceptance, resistance, choice, particularity, invention, perceptions, rejections, and so forth (Cornell and Hartmann 1998: 77). Puerto Rican identities are based on differences of language, ethnicity, race, sexuality, gender, and class, but predominantly on place of origin (place of birth). In other words, Puerto Ricanness means different things for different people at different places in different times: it is contextual. For Puerto Ricans in the Orlando metropolitan area, Puerto Ricanness is often seen as primordial; it is defined as something that can be passed on through family line and blood. According to this reasoning, what determines identity is the group one is born into, and other characteristics such as the language one first learn to speak (Isaacs 1975). Therefore, for Puerto Ricans in Orlando, Puerto Ricanness is what Cornell and Hartmann (1998: 48) identify as fixed, fundamental, and rooted in the unchangeable circumstances of birth. For example, Puerto Rico’s government representative in Orlando argues that

First is the blood, that heritage… and let me tell you that here [in Metro-Orlando] there are young people that are third and fourth generation [Puerto Rican], and they have been only in Puerto Rico for vacations, but they feel as Puerto Rican as those who come from there [Puerto Rico]. They know about the island because they study about Puerto Rico in their houses. We are too nationalist for such a

71 small island, in the good sense of the expression. We, the majority of the people that identify with the island, regardless of where have you born, as far as you have Boricua blood, that is what identify us.

Also on this subject, the Puerto Rican pastor stated

Puerto Ricanness is much more than just being born in the island; it is a culture, how you have been raised. There are characteristics that shape us; we identify ourselves with the island because our parents were born there, because we were raised there. Therefore, I have in me that blood that comes from my parents that were born there [in Puerto Rico]. For me, Puerto Ricanness does not have anything to do with been born in the island, it has a lot to do with heritage. cultural heritage, social heritage, religious heritage... and that makes me think on the type of food, our expressions, our accent, they way we talk… that is what makes us Puerto Ricans.

Being mainland-born himself, the pastor is reflecting on his personal case. He was born in New York, raised between the island and the mainland and came to Orlando from the island. He is clearly building his identity based on primordial notions. When he makes sense of his identity, he emphasizes the fact that his parents are island-born, as if he were trying to point out that he is Puerto Rican because he was born Puerto Rican. Consequently, he feels he belongs to the community as a Puerto Rican, not because of place but because of the already-made set of endowments and identifications (Isaacs 1975: 38) that he shares with other Puerto Ricans because of the family he was born into. The pastor also makes reference to the fact that he spent most of his childhood on the island. With that comment he is trying to “legitimize” his Puerto Ricanness, stating that Puerto Ricanness is not only based on birth place, but also on connections and linkages to the island. He also pushes aside the fact that he has been moving back and forth between the island and the mainland. In his mind he is an island-based Puerto Rican, now part of the Puerto Rican community of Orlando. His reflections not only show the general notions Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando have regarding their Puerto Ricanness, but also are a indication of the multiplicity and complexity of Puerto Rican identities.

72 Following these thoughts, City Commissioner #1 argued

Well, I think everything depends on how you have been raised. Again, I think it is the culture; the culture is something no one can change. If I pass that to my son, regardless of the fact that he was born in Florida, his culture, his roots are Puerto Ricans. We are all Puerto Ricans… of Puerto Rican roots born in different places.

Here, through the notions of City Commissioner #1, the “predetermination” of Puerto Rican identities is highlighted again. However, these are perceptions from the diaspora, the Metro-Orlando diaspora. These cases are island-born Puerto Ricans, with the exception of the pastor (mainland-born) who spent most of his childhood on the island. All of them have been lived in Orlando long enough to raise a family. They already have second and third generation of immediate relatives who were born in Florida. Consequently, these perceptions aim for the inclusion, not for them, but rather for their children and grandchildren who were born in Florida. Therefore, they define Puerto Ricanness as primordial, where the history and origins of the group one is born into (Isaacs 1975) are as important as being born in Puerto Rico. In the case of the pastor, this line of reasoning aims for self-inclusion into the identity of island-based Puerto Ricanness. On this line of reasoning, the representative of the Puerto Rican Government in Orlando added

My daughter married an American. Her children, my grandchildren, are what we called 50%-50%. My son-in-law is teaching them Spanish. My son-in-law, who is not Puerto Rican, wants them to learn about my culture, my language, and my traditions. We celebrate Santa Claus, but we also celebrate the Three Kings Day. The children are learning both things, and we always teach them that they are Puerto Ricans as well.

Likewise, City Commissioner #1 added

My son was born in Jacksonville on the 22nd of December, 1989. He does not have dominion of the Spanish language, but ask him where is he from… he will say from Puerto Rico.

73 Nearly all the interviewees defined Puerto Ricanness as primordial, as something defined by birth that can be passed on through family line and blood. However, such definitions of Puerto Ricanness in Metro-Orlando also present some circumstantialist elements; as their definition includes their mainland-born children and grandchildren, but does not include Nuyoricans. Consequently, I argue that the interviewees’ definitions and notions of Puerto Ricanness are based more on the circumstances of Metro-Orlando than on nature and predetermination. With this, the social, religious, political, and community leaders I interviewed are not only trying to give their Florida-born offspring the Puerto Rican label, but they are also trying to construct and maintain a community. They are willing to overlook their place of birth for Florida’s Puerto Ricans, but not for all others elsewhere on the mainland. In this sense, they are emphasizing and/or ignoring elements of their own identities when such identities are in some way advantageous or disadvantageous to them (Cornell and Hartmann 1998). These are perceptions from the people in positions of power to “set the rules”. However, average Puerto Ricans showed similar opinions. When they were asked about the elements they think are important in order to be a Puerto Rican, nearly 80 percent said that a Puerto Rican is a person whose parents were born on the island. While almost 65 percent said that in order to be Puerto Rican “pride” is what matters. Likewise, about 20 percent noted that linkages with the island are also important in order to be a Puerto Rican (Figure 5). It is important to mention that this was an “open” question where respondents wrote their own notions of Puerto Ricanness (see Appendix E for a summary of the survey results). Also, I have to note that the majority (79 percent) of these average Puerto Ricans interviewed identified themselves as island-born, while 21 percent identified themselves as mainland-born. For general Puerto Ricans, as for the decision-makers, Puerto Ricanness can be passed on through the family line. Yet, that family line must have a direct connection with the island. If a “Puerto Rican” was not born in the island, then her/his parents must be island-born. It seems that this condition is more important than the others. Being that the majority of the respondents were island-born Puerto Ricans (79 percent), this condition seems inapplicable to them or unnecessary to include on the list. However, it can be argued that their definition of Puerto Ricanness is being rationalized not to fit their

74 own realities, but rather to fit the new reality of Metro-Orlando. In that regard, these island-born Puerto Ricans are more concerned with the “label” that their Florida-born children or prospective children would receive than with defining Puerto Ricanness accordingly to their personal experiences. This implies that they are constructing a Puerto Ricanness that can be stretched to include some, but not all, mainland-born individuals. This behavior clearly draws boundaries of inclusion and exclusion for the Metro-Orlando Puerto Rican community.

s 70 60 50

40 30 20

Percent of Respondent of Percent 10

0 Parents were Pride Born in P.R. Contact with Spanish born in P.R. P.R. Language Figure 5: Important Elements to be Puerto Rican Source: Author’s fieldwork

Yet, how this community is defining Puerto Ricanness is influenced by other factors as well. The fact that Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens has an impact on perceptions of Puerto Ricanness. This element places Puerto Ricans in a “third or in-between pace” (Bhabha 1994; Soja 1996) in the process of identity formation. Puerto Ricans construct their identities as Puerto Ricans but at the same time as Americans. This presupposes the creation of hybrid identities, involved in the processes of fusion and mixture, bilingualism and multilingualism, and cohabitation. This hybridity acknowledges that identity is constructed through a negotiation of difference (Papastergiadis 2000: 170). The former president of a Puerto Rican organization in Central Florida argues

75 I am an American Citizen and my roots are Boricuas [Puerto Rican]. I think I belong to two cultures. This is something like the Commonwealth status of Puerto Rico. The case of Puerto Rico is very special. Our culture has not ever been a pure one, since the U.S. won the Spanish-American War on 1898. Puerto Rico never had a pure culture; we have always been a colony, always under the influence of another power. Some times this is sad, because we have been criticized because our culture has been mixed, but that is not the truth, the truth is that we have always been a colony, and we have been under the dominion of other people.

Similarly, another Puerto Rican leading figure, City Commissioner #1, adds

I have always said that I am American citizen born in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is a colony; Puerto Rico is part of the United Status. I do not see any difference between saying I am Puerto Rican and saying I am Floridian, or I am from Texas… we are all American Citizens born in different parts. Puerto Rico is not a nation, Puerto Rico is not an ethnic situation, is not a race. Puerto Rico is a state, part of the U.S., a colony of the U.S. with American tendencies. I was born in that little piece of land that is Puerto Rico.

On the other hand, the County Commissioner, in reference to her Puerto Ricanness notes, “I am Puerto Rican first; secondly, obviously I am American”. These responses reflect how Puerto Ricanness is closely related to politics in Puerto Rico. When the respondents mention that Puerto Rico is a colony of the U.S., they are making reference to the United States-Puerto Rico relationship. Several interviewees made reference to their American “element” of their identity. This is evidence of the influential role that the political relationship between the island and the mainland has on the construction of Puerto Rican self-consciousness. But it also demonstrated the multiplicity and complexity of Puerto Ricanness. Puerto Ricans not only construct their notions of Puerto Ricanness based on pride, linkages, language, and their own or their parents’ place of birth, but also on political considerations. As the interviewees’ responses indicated, their personal opinions regarding the political status of the island are much at play when they make sense of their selves and self-identify as only

76 Puerto Rican, or first Puerto Rican and second American, or American of Puerto Rican origin. These different opinions, and perhaps the interviewees’ political orientation, can be seen through their comments; for example, the former president of a Puerto Rican organization in Central Florida, when she said “I am an American Citizen and my roots are Boricuas… I belong to two cultures.”, and City Commissioner #1 stated, “I have always said that I am American citizen born in Puerto Rico… I do not see any difference between saying I am Puerto Rican and saying I am Floridian, or I am from Texas… we are all American Citizens born in different parts.” Similarly, status and identity issues are on display when the County Commissioner said, “I am Puerto Rican first; secondly, obviously I am American”. Puerto Ricanness, for the Orlando-based community, has moved towards a non- territorial definition of the concept. For them, heritage and blood line is more important when identifying Puerto Ricanness than birth place. At first sight, it seems that they construct their identity based on what Cornell and Hartmann (1998: 48) identify as a primordialist approach rooted on fixed, fundamental, and unchangeable circumstances of birth. Yet when examined closely, their situation fits better what Cohen (1974: 96) identifies as circumstantialist identities moved by struggle over strategic positions of power, education, political positions, and so on. These arguments are of particular relevance in a community like Metro-Orlando, where a portion of the Puerto Rican population was not born in Puerto Rico. Consequently, all Puerto Ricans, island-born and mainland-born, regardless of their differences of meanings, imagine themselves as part of a Puerto Rican community. A community based on the construction of a collective consciousness and identity. Such Puerto Rican collective consciousness is filled with dualisms. Puerto Ricans are constructing their identities in an inbetweenness of being Puerto Rican and being American. This diversity allows the multiplicity of identities based on the existence of multiple layers of identity. Each layer represents a different background and perception. This status makes the task of identifying Puerto Ricanness particularly difficult.

77 Language Language is a factor closely related to considerations of identities. Woolard and Schieffelin (1994: 56) argue that “there is -or should be- a link between a given language and a people.” Similarly, Giles and Johnson (1981, 1987) advocate an ethnolinguistic identity theory with language as a central factor of group membership and social identity. For Puerto Ricans, language not only accounts for the most contested difference between differing interpretations of Puerto Ricanness, it also reflects the dualism, multiplicity, and complexity surrounding Puerto Ricans’ self-consciousness processes. In Puerto Rico, Spanish is a very important factor in the definition of national identity. Several studies involving identity issues conducted in Puerto Rico suggest that language is a critical dimension of Puerto Rican identity (Chaclar 1997; Giles, et al. 1990). Spanish is the dominant language in Puerto Rico and only 14 percent of the population is fluent in English1. Puerto Ricans in the island not only speak Spanish, but the also believe that Spanish is crucial to maintaining their cultural identity and keep them away from “Americanization”. As Gumperz and Cook-Gumperz (1982: 7) put it, the belief that “social identity and ethnicity are in large part established and maintained through language is evident”. In Puerto Rico this notion was seen through a large media campaign (or as the creators called it, “The Campaign in Defense of the Spanish Language”) sponsored by one of the main universities in the island, promoting the “correct” use of Spanish and the use of Spanish words instead of the popularly used “Anglicism”2 (see Appendix F for examples from the campaign). The campaign slogan was “El idioma es la sangre del espíritu, háblalo bien, con orgullo: Idioma defectuoso, pensamiento defectuoso” (“the language is the blood of the spirit, speak it well, with pride: Defective language, defective thoughts”). Similarly, these linkages between Puerto Ricanness and Spanish were seen on various popular manifestations where hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans marched to express their opposition to the implementation of English as the second official language of the island.3

1 Numbers form the U.S. Census 2006 Puerto Rico Community Survey. 2 Anglicism refers to the adaptation of English words into Spanish (in the case of Puerto Rico). 3 La Marcha en Defensa del Idioma Español, January 21, 1993.

78 However, in the diaspora, language is also an aspect shaping notions of Puerto Ricanness. Besides what the current literature says regarding Spanish and its connections to Puerto Rican national identity, the content analysis of my data guided me to language as a factor in the construction of Puerto Rican identities in Metro-Orlando. All the interviewees made reference to language at some point of the interview. Yet such notions show a distancing from the island’s notions of Spanish as crucial for the preservation of Puerto Ricanness. For example, when defining Puerto Ricanness, the university professor argues

On the island, Spanish is a central element when defining national identity. However, in the United States, it is becoming more common that persons of Puerto Rican origin born and raised on the mainland, that are still identifying themselves as Puerto Ricans, use English as their first language. In others words, on the particular context of the diaspora, language is no longer an essential or central element to define identity. Therefore, I think that in that situation, Puerto Ricans of second generation stick to their Puerto Ricanness as any other Puerto Rican born and raised in the island. Those redefined their selves; they define their identity based on other cultural, family, and emotional elements that often are not the same elements that are being used on the island.

This language variation represents one of the major differences between the island-based and mainland-based interpretations of Puerto Ricanness. For mainland-born Puerto Ricans, English is the main language, on the other hand, for island-born Puerto Ricans, Spanish is the main language. At this point, different interpretations of Puerto Ricanness are being negotiated and renegotiated. This is a contentious point in the formation of Puerto Ricanness in Metro-Orlando. Island-born Puerto Ricans wish to maintain Spanish as their main language and pass it to their children, while mainland- born Puerto Ricans show little or no interest in using Spanish as their everyday life. As the County Commissioner says

When you understand the differences between the Puerto Ricans who come from Puerto Rico, and those who come from New York, you realize we are very

79 different. As one friend of mine says: “Those [Puerto Ricans] who speak perfect English, those are no good; those who speak with an accent… that is a good Puerto Rican.

These expressions not only show a point of friction between island-born and mainland- born Puerto Ricans, but also set the boundaries of inclusion for Central Florida’s Puerto Rican community. Yet, this is not the only thing that can be observed through the interviews. The analysis of such interviews also reveals contradictions in the interviewee’s notions of Spanish and its relation with Puerto Ricanness. It is clear that in some instances Spanish is being used to define Puerto Ricanness, and that mainland-born Puerto Ricans feel “attached” to Spanish. However, they also recognize that Florida’s Puerto Ricans, particularly the youth, are increasingly becoming un-attached from Spanish. In this sense, on the one hand interviewees think Spanish is important and defines the differences with mainland-born individuals. But on the other hand, they implicitly reveal their “struggle” to pass Spanish on to their young, and to an extent are accepting their children and grandchildren’s preference for English. Examples of this tendency are seen in the comments of the president of one of the major Puerto Rican associations in Metro-Orlando when she states

My grandchildren are following my footsteps, before, they did not speak any Spanish, but now they do. I always tell them about the importance of speaking Spanish, to have dominion of another language, and I always remind them about the importance of their roots.

Likewise, the comments of the representative of the Puerto Rican government in Orlando when she observes,

My daughter was born in the island, but she was raised here [Orlando], she remembers very little about the island. At home, we always speak Spanish, because I wanted them to know Spanish also, it was important for me, is the same situation with my grandchildren.

80 These remarks reveal that for these interviewees Spanish is still an important factor determining belongingness. Their interest in passing Spanish on to their offspring is evidence of this. However, in doing so, interviewees recognize that Spanish is at risk of being lost in Metro-Orlando. Through their responses it can be seen that the main language of their children and grandchildren is not Spanish. On this issue of language (Figure 6), 43 percent of the respondents said that at home they only speak Spanish, 43 percent said that at home they speak both Spanish and English, and only 14 percent said that at home they speak only English. It is important to mention that all of those who identified themselves as mainland-born said they only speak English at home. Of those who identified themselves as island-born, approximately half said that at home they only speak Spanish, and about the other half said they use both Spanish and English. Yet, when it comes to language used at work, some differences can be seen. Only fourteen percent expressed that at work they only use Spanish, 21 percent said they only use English, while 57 percent said they use both Spanish and English. These results suggest that regardless of the desires of the island-born Puerto Ricans in keeping and making Spanish the community’s “official” language, English is becoming important and its use more common. Language is not only the central factor of group membership and social identity (Giles and Johnson 1981, 1987), its usage and preference over other languages is also associated with social and economic factors (Hansen and Liu 1997: 570). In the Orlando metropolitan area, in order to get integrated into the economy, Puerto Ricans need to speak and understand English. As discussed above, most average Puerto Ricans use English at work or school. This fact suggests that for a large majority, English is at the center of their everyday life, more so for young Puerto Ricans, who go public schools and universities where English is the dominant language. Therefore, it can be argued that most of their day is lived in English. However, Spanish is still important at home. It seems that their homes are the only place where the use of Spanish prevails over English. But not entirely, as we can see that there are as many people using both Spanish and English at home as there are people who use only Spanish. These numbers presuppose an assimilation of Metro-Orlando Puerto Ricans, or at least the group’s transformation into a bilingual community. The use of both Spanish and English can be seen as a symptom of a

81 “weakening” language, or the persistence on the behalf of the parents to use Spanish while the children use English. As Hansen and Liu (1997: 568) put it, “individuals that face linguistic adaptations or assimilate into another group may result in subtractive bilingualism or even language erosion.” And since language is a salient marker of group membership and identity (Hansen and Liu 1997: 568), such bilingualism or language erosion will also affect individual's self-conceptions (Tajfel 1974: 69). In that regard, the fact that English is gaining ground in Metro-Orlando Puerto Ricans’ everyday life adds another layer to the complexity of Puerto Rican identities.

50 40 30

10 Percent ofRespondents 0

What language do you speak at What language do you speak at home? school/work?

Spanish English Both

Figure 6: Language usage in Metro-Orlando

Source: Author’s fieldwork

These patterns can also be seen in the percentages of decision-makers and ordinary Puerto Ricans interviewed. In that regard, 80 percent of the decision-makers were born in Puerto Rico, while 20 percent were born on the mainland. However, those who were born on the mainland identified themselves as island-based because they were raised in the island, and because they came to Orlando directly from the island. 79 percent of the common Puerto Ricans said they are island-born and 21 percent said they

82 are mainland-born. These numbers suggest a privileged position for island-born Puerto Ricans in the construction of Metro-Orlando’s Puerto Rican community. Consequently, those in positions of power are making language part of the “components” when defining Puerto Ricanness. In their minds they get to decide, or at least imagine, the development of the community in the new setting of Central Florida. Their children and grandchildren are second and third generation “immigrants”, and they see in these new generations the future of the community. Thus, they are very interested in teaching Spanish to their children and grandchildren. Spanish, therefore, is being positioned as one of the primary means for the reproduction of a collective identity as Puerto Ricans; a way to distinguish themselves, the community, from the excluded “others”. However, as Metro-Orlando Puerto Ricans’ idea of keeping Spanish as the “main” language of the community gets harder to achieve, they search for different factors to maintain the boundaries of inclusion and exclusion. This process is not only making language largely controversial but also creates notions of difference between island-born and mainland-born Puerto Ricans.

Island-born versus Mainland-born Currently, migrants coming from Puerto Rico account for the majority of the Puerto Ricans moving to Metro-Orlando, yet there are significant numbers of Puerto Ricans who have migrated from other states to Florida. However, this fact does not necessarily mean the existence of an “all-inclusive”, or “everybody is included” type of community. For the Metro-Orlando Puerto Rican community, when it comes to belonging, there is a bottom line. Puerto Ricans in the island share a perception about “other Puerto Ricans” born or raised in the mainland. As a consequence of the massive Puerto Rican migration to the U.S. since the early 1900s, a Puerto Rican diaspora formed in places like New York and Chicago. Many of these mainland-based Puerto Ricans returned to the island, but they went back with a different language and different life experiences. Puerto Ricans in the island perceived these differences as a threat to their national identity and started to disassociate themselves from those coming from the mainland. Such notions of difference between island-born and mainland-born Puerto Ricans are revealed in the interviewees’

83 responses. In this regard, the director of the leading Puerto Rican newspaper in Central Florida argues

We also have to determine how many generations back we can go. For example, you need a direct link. It needs to be a person who has been born in Puerto Rico or direct descendant from Puerto Rico. The fact that I feel Boricua does not mean you are Puerto Rican. The Puerto Ricans from New York are not fluent in Spanish, they are not interested in our newspaper, and they are not interested in what is happening in Puerto Rico.

She elaborates on this;

Those from New York are not included when people here [Metro-Orlando] talk about the Puerto Rican community. That is something that is not just from here, is something we bring from Puerto Rico. In pejorative form, the so-called Nuyorican. Regardless of how Puerto Rican a person who was born in New York might feel, here she or he is not considered as Puerto Rican. That is an old issue in the island, and here has us divided. Therefore, we automatically exclude the person who comes from New York, and we even say that they are the responsible for giving us a bad image.

Similarly, the County Commissioner comments:

Of course, there is a difference between those who come from other states and those who come from Puerto Rico. Is a different culture, the Puerto Rican who comes from New York, the so called Nuyorican, talks different, behave different, it dress different… is more aggressive. Possibly they are second or more generations from the Puerto Rican that migrated there in the 1940s. That is the element that does not fit, the one who comes from other states.

These perceptions reveal the accepted definition of Puerto Ricanness in Metro- Orlando. According to this definition, Puerto Ricanness is directly related to Puerto Rico. Only a person who was born in Puerto Rico, or a person who, regardless of the fact that

84 she or he was born on the mainland, moved directly from the island to Florida, and their offspring, are considered Puerto Rican by the Metro-Orlando community. In simpler terms, all other persons who were born in the mainland, moving to Florida directly from another state, are excluded from this community. Therefore, a reference to differences between groups of Puerto Ricans in Florida is an argument for the creation of boundaries of inclusion and exclusion. Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando, or at least those who fulfill the requirements to be included in such community, revived the term Nuyorican.4 Such views shape island- based Puerto Ricans’ sense of identity through the formation of opposites. In order to construct identities, it is necessary to establish opposites such as “us vs. them” (Gregory 1995; Pile and Thrift 1995; Said 1978). As Gregory (1995: 456) noted, “the construction of identity involves establishing opposites and others.” Metro-Orlando’s Puerto Ricans identify themselves by emphasizing what they are not. They construct their identity through what Cornell and Hartmann (1998) call “identifying against”, first defining the “other” and then defining themselves as “not the other”, the opposite. For that purpose, Puerto Ricans are creating (or reviving) labels and concepts of “othering”. The labels used to differentiate social groups are important for the psychological segregation and perpetuation of the categories (Lorenzo-Hernández 1999: 991). Labeling Puerto Ricans moving to Florida from other states in such ways excludes them from the category “Puerto Rican”. This practice also fosters a negative or pejorative attitude towards them. They are seen as different, not equal; therefore they are the opposite of Puerto Rican. This is clear when the County Commissioner says, “They have a different culture, the Puerto Rican who comes from New York”, or when the representative of the Puerto Rican government in Orlando notes “There are differences of culture; naturally the one who comes from the island is more embedded to the culture and knows it better”. This view harshly excludes “Nuyoricans” from a definition of Puerto Ricanness and therefore from the Metro-Orlando community.

4 The label Nuyorican resulted from the fact that historically most Puerto Ricans migrants have settled in New York City: 81 percent in 1952, 62 percent in 1970, and 40 percent in 1990 (FitzPatrick 1987; Reddy 1993).

85 It is evident that island-born Puerto Ricans, who compose the majority in Metro- Orlando, are trying to exclude mainland-born Puerto Ricans. However, what it is not evident is that they are creating a double standard to justify such exclusion. They base their arguments of exclusion on cultural differences, yet they themselves have some cultural distinctions with Puerto Rico, as the language situation revealed. In other words, what they are experiencing in Orlando is similar to what Nuyoricans experienced much earlier. Perhaps Metro-Orlando Puerto Ricans acknowledge this situation and are trying to not repeat the “story” and become Nuyoricans themselves, and therefore face some rejection from the island-born counterparts. Their exclusion of Nuyoricans from any consideration of Puerto Ricanness in Metro-Orlando is just the reproduction of the island’s old perception about “other Puerto Ricans” born or raised in the mainland, some sort of islanders’ cultural baggage. Building from my content analysis, I argue that island-born Puerto Ricans in Orlando grew up with these notions of Nuyoricans and when they move to Florida they still acknowledge such labels and the implications behind them. However, when they themselves experience cultural distinctions with Puerto Rico, through their own cases or that of their children and grandchildren, they reinforce the Nuyorican label. They do this not as much to exclude “Nuyoricans” from their community as to exclude themselves and their offspring from becoming the “other”, the Nuyorican. This idea is evidenced when interviewees contradict themselves by constructing a selective primordialism, or circumstantialist primordialism, when defining Puerto Ricanness. On the one hand they define Puerto Ricanness as something based on the unchangeable conditions of birth, but on the other hand they adjust that idea to exclude Nuyoricans based on the existing circumstances in Metro-Orlando. A similar argument can be made about language: they see Spanish as important, but they “waive” their children and grandchildren from the “requisite” of language when defining Puerto Ricanness. Similarly, there are other elements accentuating the differences between “Puerto Ricans” and “Nuyoricans”. Besides the differences of birth place, language, and cultural elements, the so-called Nuyoricans are also seen as inferior in terms of education and other skills. City Commissioner #2 says,

86 The big difference is between the educated Puerto Rican and the uneducated Puerto Rican. There is a difference between the people who migrated in the 1960s that was poor, working class. We noticed certain things; some of those were successful and moved here [Metro-Orlando] to retire. But there are others who come here [Metro-Orlando] with the idea of living on welfare at the expense of the government. The one who came from other states, the uneducated, are coming with a bad attitude. Therefore, the most important thing here is not from where you are coming from, the important factor is education.

Similarly, the County Commissioner argues

Those who migrated during the 1940s were uneducated. The Puerto Rican who come from the island is a professional. Therefore, the professional comes with a different attitude, its behavior is different. As soon as someone enters that door [the commissioner’s office] I know whether that person is Nuyorican or not. Regularly, those who come from Puerto Rico are humble; they come to work, to struggle for a better life, that is the professional, the businessman.

There are, indeed, socio-economic inequalities between Puerto Ricans in the island and Puerto Ricans in New York and elsewhere in the United States. Educational levels and income are the two most visible ones. These inequalities respond to the different conditions that characterized each migration wave from the island to the mainland. Each period represent immigrants with different social, educational and economic backgrounds. The first two waves, from the early 1900s to the 1970s, were characterized for a Puerto Rican migration of mostly unskilled workers with substantially lower educational attainment. On this issue, the university professor notes,

There are many differences documented on the census. These differences are still representing an important element for the construction of the community. The fundamental difference, in my opinion, is class. The Puerto Rican community in Central Florida show better literacy rates, income rates, and occupational rates, superior to those of other parts of the United States, particularly the three great

87 historical communities of New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia. On the other hand, in Central Florida we see a strong presence of a middle class and a business sector, never seen before in such noticeable way in other Puerto Rican migratory experiences to the mainland.

Similarly, common Puerto Ricans perceive differences between island-born and mainland-born Puerto Ricans (Figure 7). Nearly 90 percent of the interviewed common Puerto Ricans make a distinction between “Puerto Ricans” and “Nuyoricans”. Of those who draw that line between “Puerto Rican” and “Nuyorican”, nearly 70 percent think that such differences are rooted in dissimilar behavior and values. For these Puerto Ricans, Nuyoricans behave differently, not as “Puerto Ricans”, because they have different values and aspirations. On this point, one of the interviewed common Puerto Ricans added a note on his response saying “Puerto Ricans in the U.S. think that in order to be Puerto Rican it is needed a lot of advertisement”. This note makes reference to the exaggerated use of Puerto Rican symbols. Similarly, 35 percent of those who think that island-born and mainland-born Puerto Ricans are different think so because of differences in education. On the other hand, around 15 percent of the interviewed common Puerto Ricans do not think there are differences between the island-born from mainland-born. However, it is important to mention that all of those who do not divide the island-born and mainland-born Puerto Ricans, identified themselves as mainland- born. This was an “open” question where respondents wrote their own notions of Puerto Ricanness. As can be seen in the respondents’ comments, there are notions of difference that are being used to exclude the Puerto Ricans who come from others states. Differences reinforce the maintenance and continuity of boundaries. As Barth (1969: 15) puts it, “the dichotomization of others as strangers, as members of another ethnic group, implies recognition of limitations on shared understandings, differences in criteria for judgment of value and performance, and a restriction of interaction to sectors of assumed common understanding and mutual interest”. Mainland-based Puerto Ricans certainly differ from island-based Puerto Ricans in some aspects, such as language skills, educational levels, and those coming from big urban centers like New York and Chicago also present

88 behavioral differences compared to those coming from the island. Yet these alleged differences that make Nuyoricans different from “Puerto Ricans” are often exaggerated. Puerto Ricans living on the island are convinced that their counterparts on the mainland hold views that are radically different from their own (Daniel 2000: 20). However, the majority of the people migrating to Florida, from elsewhere on the mainland or from the island, come to work in the service tourism-based industry of Central Florida. These are mainly low-wage, unskilled jobs. In this sense, in terms of the Metro-Orlando context there is not much difference between both groups. This was the case during the Puerto Rican earlier migration to other places in the United States and is currently the case in Metro-Orlando, as mainland and island-born Puerto Ricans have become a source of unskilled labor. Also, recent studies5 reveal that currently Puerto Ricans in the United States are doing better economically than those residing in Puerto Rico. Therefore, it can be argued that these differences, far from being completely accurate, are just the “importation” from the island of notions of differences based on language and social attitudes that led to the creation of the concept of Nuyorican in the first place. In Metro-Orlando the creation of such notions of differences responds more to politics than culture. Here, processes of power relations are very much at play. It is important to remember that identities are also the result of arrangements of power (Massey 1995). As Kaya (2003: 9) put it, “at the heart of identity politics is difference, power, and change”. Self-consciousness is inherently a claim for the power to depict group boundaries. Consequently, differences provide the basis for identity claims as groups seek power for their advantage (Soja and Hooper 1993).

Conclusion In the Orlando metropolitan area, terms like “island-born Puerto Rican” and “mainland-born Puerto Rican” or “Nuyorican” are still highly contested and used as the main means to define affiliation. Therefore, regardless of the claims of Puerto Ricanness as a primordial phenomenon, when it comes to claiming membership in such a community, the current circumstances are what really matters. In this sense, those coming

5 Research conducted by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, see Márquez 2004.

89 from the island are privileged in relation to those coming from elsewhere in United States because they are seen as the true Puerto Ricans.

s 35 30 25 20 15 10 Percent of Respondent of Percent 5 0

Their behavior Their They advertise Their values The way they education themselves too grew up much

Mainland-born Puerto Ricans are different becuse...

Figure 7: Differences between Island-born and Mainland-born Puerto Ricans Source: Author’s fieldwork

The Puerto Rican identity construction process in Metro-Orlando relies on notions of differences to build Puerto Ricanness. Puerto Ricans living in the United States, in the same way as the majority of other migrants, are forced to define themselves in relation to the dominant norms in the United States (Daniel 2000: 13). Migrants construct a distinctive identity when they are exposed to new cultural, social, political, and economic conditions in a host country. In the Metro-Orlando case, as can be seen through the voices from my interviewees, this distinctive identity is not accepted. There, in Metro-Orlando, labels such a “Nuyorican” are being used to define affiliation. Language is the central conflict for the Puerto Rican community. As the content analysis of my data suggests, the use of Spanish is a main factor in the construction of Puerto Rican identities in Metro-Orlando, but not because Puerto Ricans in the island

90 speak Spanish and Puerto Ricans in the mainland speak English. Far from that simplistic dichotomy, language dualism is intended for the justification of the creation and maintenance of boundaries of inclusion and exclusion. Metro-Orlando Puerto Ricans base their arguments for the creation of such boundaries on cultural differences, Spanish usage being central. However, on the one hand they see Spanish as important and are almost “desperately” trying to pass it on to their children and grandchildren. But on the other hand, when they see the idea of keeping Spanish as the “main” language of the community getting harder to fully achieve, they search for different factors to maintain the boundaries of inclusion and exclusion. In doing so, to a certain point they are accepting bilingualism, assimilation, and hybridity. These are elements that characterize the Puerto Rican diaspora elsewhere in the United States. So, as they maintain the notions of difference between island-born and mainland-born Puerto Ricans, reinforcing the label of “Nuyorican”, they themselves develop cultural distinctions with Puerto Rico that, according to their own notions of Puerto Ricanness, are increasingly making them more “Nuyoricans” than “Puerto Ricans”. However, this fight is not just for affiliation, but also for the right to claim who authentically represents Puerto Ricanness in Florida. Puerto Ricans who are fully fluent in Spanish feel more Puerto Rican than those who are not. Therefore they feel they can claim they are the “true Puerto Ricans”, thus set the rules and conditions for the formation of the Puerto Rican community in Metro-Orlando. These notions of authenticity have led to the creation of stereotypes, generalizations and to the use of pejorative terms among Puerto Ricans. The Spanish language, therefore, not only represents one of the central means for the reproduction of a collective identity as Puerto Ricans, but it also reflects the multiplicity and complexity of Puerto Rican identities.

CHAPTER VII

THE ORLANDORICANS

Collective identity is built out of multiple affiliations and positionings (McEwan 2004: 501). When building such collective identities, people link their cross-cutting sense of belongingness, which is always characterized by complexity and multiplicity, to, other people, places, and traditions beyond the boundaries of their homeland (McEwan 2004: 501). Migrants cross borders, bringing with them their culture, beliefs, and traditions, and they become relatively less or more assimilated to prevailing cultural norms of the new territory (McEwan 2004: 500). In most cases, migrants construct a distinctive identity when they are exposed to the new cultural, social, political, and economical forms in the host country. In some instances, as Levitt and Glick (2004: 1017) argue, “these diasporas can be identified as the building block for transnational and hybrid communities”. In this chapter, I examine Puerto Ricanness and the meanings individual Puerto Ricans make of its multiplicity and complexity. My argument is that Metro-Orlando’s Puerto Ricans are realizing that they belong to a community that splits over two distinct cultures. They are what Pries (2001: 18) calls “a transnational community with social practices, artifacts and symbols systems that span different geographic spaces”. With that in mind, I first discuss the politics of Puerto Rican identities in the Orlando metropolitan area. Second, I explore how Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando are constructing a community based on their arguments of different and uniqueness. Finally, I show how Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando build a hybrid collective identity that is becoming more familiar to the American society, accepting many of its customs and to an extent integrating such customs into their everyday life. On the one hand they do not accept complete homogenization, but on the other hand they accept “cultural borrowings”.

The Orlandoricans Central Florida, particularly Metro-Orlando, provides an interesting setting for the formation of a Puerto Rican community. This region is one of the nation’s fastest

92 growing metropolitan areas. Its overall population has surpassed two million, becoming a highly diverse area. However, contrary to South Florida, this area is virgin soil for Hispanics, and certainly for Puerto Ricans. From being a predominantly white area with an Afro-American minority (Table 12), currently Puerto Ricans are the most visible culturally and ethnically distinct group in this area. In Orange and Osceola counties alone, Hispanics approach 25 and 40 percent of its total population respectively, and Puerto Ricans account for nearly 50 and 62 percent respectively of the total Hispanic population1. This scenario places Puerto Ricans as a minority group in the larger metropolitan perspective, and at the same time, the predominant group at the local level.

Table 13: Race in Metropolitan Orlando, Florida Source: US Census Bureau % Increase Race 1990 2000 2006 1990-2006 White 1,366,484 1,618,184 1,816,002 33

Black 201,884 293,413 378,384 87

Hispanic/Latino 117,323 317,560 519,796 343

Yet Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando are different from the rest of the diaspora due to the nature of their migration patterns to Florida. In part, the massive migration of Puerto Ricans to the mainland from the early 1900s to the late 1970s was encouraged by the government of Puerto Rico. At that time, the government of the Popular Democratic Party (pro-Commonwealth) launched a government-induced migration sustained by an argument that the island had a problem of overpopulation that was reflected in the labor surplus and high unemployment. As part of their plans, the government of Puerto Rico assisted Puerto Rican emigrants in finding jobs and with the adjustment problems in the mainland. Therefore, with the exception of isolated cases, these Puerto Ricans moving to places such as New York, NY, Chicago, IL, Philadelphia, PA, Hartford, CT, and Lorain, OH were “pushed” out of the island. These migrants often maintained a desire to go back

1 U.S. Census 2006 American Community Survey

93 to the island, what materialized as the development of a circular migration pattern between the island and these centers on the mainland.

On the other hand, the latest migration wave from the island to the mainland is dramatically different. These new immigrants are coming in great numbers to Central Florida, but not induced by the government. They are coming due to personal and individual decisions and motivations, but also as a consequence of the marketing efforts of real estate companies. But most important, as my fieldwork revealed, the majority is coming with the idea that they are not going back to the island. As the director of the leading newspaper in Metro-Orlando notes, “The cases of Chicago and New York were orchestrated by the government, we did not get to Chicago and New York because we liked those places; we got there because of the government. Orlando has been for individual motives, contrary to the orchestration when the government put people in boats in mass”. Many Puerto Ricans moving to Orlando intend to make Orlando their permanent home. As the Puerto Rican pastor argued,

I do not see my self going back… different from those in New York. The one of New York went there with the desire to return to the island sometime in the future. Those here [Orlando] do not come with such desires, they come to stay.

Similarly, the County Commissioner states “If you ask me if I am going back to Puerto Rico, I will answer you with a definite no, my roots are here now”. On the same line, the City Commissioner also notes, “My life is here, this is my place, and this is my home. I do have nostalgia, but this is my home now”. Through their comments, interviewees reveal the different nature of the Puerto Rican migration to Central Florida. Nearly all interviewees made clear that they came to Orlando to stay. This determination to stay plays a central role in their notions of Puerto Ricanness. As mentioned in Chapter Six, regardless of the fact the Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando define Puerto Ricanness as primordial, their definitions seem to respond to circumstances of their new life in Metro-Orlando. In that regard, their determination to stay and not go back to the island is central to their notions of Puerto Ricanness. Yet, such determinations not only make clear the reasoning behind such interpretations, but it

94 also reveal why they are almost “desperately” trying to pass Spanish on to their children and grandchildren, and why they are trying so hard to distinguish themselves from “Nuyoricans”. Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando know they are not going back to the island, but at the same time they do not want to become or be seen as the “other” in Puerto Rico. Being in the majority of the island-born, these Puerto Ricans still have immediate family in the island, and they come to Florida with the island’s stereotypes of who is and who is not Puerto Rican. It is important to mention that these interviewees occupy influential positions of power within the community. In that sense, they are better positioned in Orlando than on the island, therefore they are less likely to migrate or to return to the island. For them, the idea of going back to the island is not an option. Most of these respondents have lived in Orlando for a significant amount of time; they already have descendants born in Central Florida. For them, Metro-Orlando has become “home”. Nonetheless, these notions have an impact on the development of Puerto Rican identities in Metro-Orlando. As McEwan (2004) argued, migrants’ identities are also created in relation to their sense of belonging. In this regard, Puerto Ricans who feel as an integral part of society in Metro-Orlando will differ from Puerto Ricans elsewhere on the mainland who perceive themselves as excluded. Consequently, the formation of identities, as part of the Puerto Rican diaspora, is different in Metro-Orlando. Diaspora is more than constructing a common identity delimiting the boundaries that create the terms “they” and “us”. Diasporas also believed that they are not fully accepted by their host country, and see the ancestral home as a place of eventual return (Safran 1991: 83). People who simply live outside their ancestral homeland, as Tölöyan (1996) observed, cannot automatically be considered a diaspora. Such communities distinctly attempt to maintain (real and/or imagined) connections and commitments to their homeland and recognize themselves and act as a collective community (Bhatia and Ram 2001: 2). In the case of Central Florida, Puerto Ricans do have a sense of community and wish to maintain connections with the island. However, they do not see themselves as equal or as part of the larger diasporic Puerto Rican community in the United States. Nor do they have the myth of return that other Puerto Rican communities on the mainland have retained. In that sense, Metro-Orlando’s Puerto Ricans do not share the same notions and aspirations with the diasporic Puerto Rican community elsewhere on the mainland. This

95 Puerto Rican community elsewhere on the mainland has constructed a diasporic identity based on notion of commonality and a desire of going back to the island. En mi Viejo San Juan (see Appendix G for lyrics), a song that narrates the story of a Puerto Rican who migrated to the U.S. and always dreamed of going back and was never able to go back, is a “hit” that can be heard in Puerto Rican stores and when walking through the Puerto Rican barrios of New York, Chicago and Philadelphia, but not so much in Florida. This phenomenon is what sets the foundations for the formation of a different community in Metro-Orlando. This is a community that is distancing themselves from the rest of the diaspora and adopts the use of terms such as “Nuyoricans” to reinforce their authenticity claims. Predominantly, they have expressed their decision not to go back to the island. These views demonstrate the complexity that characterizes Puerto Ricanness in the metropolitan area of Orlando. Puerto Ricans are developing transnational lives. They are building networks of social, economic and political ties between the island and the mainland at the same time their descendants get more accustomed to American ways.

Building the Community There are some particularities within the Metro-Orlando community. Given that the people coming from the island compose the majority of Puerto Ricans immigrating to the area, there is a perception that the ties and connections of this Metro-Orlando community with the island are “fresh” and direct. These perceptions, and therefore the claims of authenticity that emanate from it, are justified by the presence of certain “Puerto Rican” institutions in Metro-Orlando. In the construction of collective consciousness, as Safran (2004) argues, diasporic communities rely on institutions that can aid them in producing a sense of identity. These institutions serve as facilitators to create and maintain collective memory and the cohesiveness to form their community (Safran 2004). In the case of the Metro-Orlando’s Puerto Rican community, such institutions not only are seen as the “face” of the community, but they also serve as proof that Central Florida’s Puerto Ricans came to Metro-Orlando to stay. In that sense, these institutions have a symbolic meaning for Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando. Such institutions create a feeling of familiarity that

96 makes the physical and mental spaces in Orlando more “friendly” to Puerto Ricans. On this matter, the Puerto Rican pastor adds

We are getting stronger, but we are not quite there yet because the community needs some key institutions. Those institutions are the banking industry, which we already have; the media, that we already have; and the church. Each community has its own key institutions, those institutions strengthen the community. The Puerto Rican community is on the right track, we have the Banco Popular, we have the media such as El Nuevo Día, Seguros Multiples de Puerto Rico [an insurance company] is already established, Ana G. Méndez and Universidad Interamericana [two private universities from Puerto Rico] are here as well. These institutions are a signal that this community, like the Cuban community in South Florida, came to dominate. The biggest churches here are Puerto Ricans; you have one with a congregation of 3,000, you have the other pastor with around 2,000, and then you have us with over 3,000. We are talking about three churches that represent over 8,000 people, and 90 percent those are Puerto Ricans. To those institutions we add the Puerto Rican radio stations; you have stations like 1030 and 1220. We the religious people have our ratio stations too. We have some institution, but we need more. We also need the decision-making institutions which is politics.

On the same theme, the representative of the Government of Puerto Rico comments,

We have some institutions here; here you can see WAPA [TV station from Puerto Rico] on the television. If you go around you will see a lot of Puerto Rican restaurants and that kind of places that are Puerto Rican.

Interviewees see these institutions as central elements of the community, and therefore for the reproduction of Puerto Ricanness. Of course, many of these institutions are run or influenced by these interviewees, which have leading positions that allow them to directly participate in the decision-making process. Nevertheless, average Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando see, go to, and participate in these institutions, and they

97 “consume” the messages and symbols such institutions carry out to the community. Consequently, these institutions are sites of production and reproduction of Puerto Ricanness. Such places are crucial in the consolidation of the Puerto Rican community. The human landscape is an unwitting biography, reflecting people’s tastes, values, aspiration, and even fears, in a concrete form (Lewis 1973). In that sense, the making of a collective Puerto Rican identity can be understood by looking at the different socially constructed sites in Metro-Orlando and their contextual meanings. On this line of thought, the university professor says

The development of a Spanish-speaking community, the development of social institutions that go from banks to churches and other practices, are suddenly changing the notions of a stranger Orlando and making it a familiar place to Puerto Ricans.

These arguments are portraying a solid community, unique with its own means of reproduction. Also, such arguments present an independent community that distinguishes itself from other communities. Yet these arguments also try to create the notion of an “authentic” Puerto Rican community that shares its institutions with the island. In this regard, it implies that this “friendly” environment is meant for island-born Puerto Ricans. People who come from the island already know these institutions, thus they are the ones relating such entities to Puerto Rico and therefore feel at home. This idea is evident when interviewees talked about these institutions. When mentioning the different institutions that already exist in Metro-Orlando, and the benefits they have on the community, they always refer to Puerto Rico. They omitted the fact that many of these institutions have been already established in other parts of the United States where the Puerto Rican diaspora has a strong presence. It is true that there are more Puerto Rican institutions in Metro-Orlando than in New York City, yet it seems that Metro-Orlando Puerto Ricans are creating the notion that they have the “exclusivity” of such institutions. This way of thinking creates the sense that Puerto Ricans in Central Florida are not a diaspora, that they are beyond that idea, they are a “new” Puerto Rico. For example, the president of the Puerto Rican association in Metro-Orlando argues,

98 The truth is that Puerto Ricans come here because Orlando has many similarities with Puerto Rico… Orlando is practically Puerto Rico. Here we have the warm weather of Puerto Rico, but we also have a growing community with many elements from the island; a different community.

Similarly, the representative of the Government of Puerto Rico comments, “They come on vacations and they see Orlando, they see the community, they like it and then go back to Puerto Rico sell everything and move to Orlando”. Or as the director of the Puerto Rican newspaper notes, “They come here; they come because of the rumor that this is wonderful… like the island has been spread; because people in the island started to talk about Orlando. Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando are trying to build a different community. It seems that they want a community with its roots in Puerto Rico, but not as a diasporic community of Puerto Rico. They are building an identity based on what they think is from the island, away from the rest of the Puerto Rican diaspora on the mainland, but at the same time they want to be an integral part of the Metro-Orlando’s society. On the one hand this desire to be an integral part of the mainstream society pushes away the idea of becoming part of a diaspora, but on the other hand it opens the doors for integration, assimilation, and acculturation. This dichotomy can be seen, as previously discussed, in their perceptions of Puerto Ricanness, their double standard when it comes to language, their exclusion of “Nuyoricans” and dissociation from the diaspora, and their determination of not going back to the island. In that sense, based on their own definitions and standards, the harder they try to differentiate themselves from “Nuyoricans”, the closer they get to becoming “Nuyoricans”. Similarly, the landscape is being made to support the notion of the “new” Puerto Rico of Metro-Orlando. In this sense, the landscape is important for both the construction of the Puerto Rican community and its identity. As Mitchell (2000) argues, the landscape is a text that can be read and which provides a context, a stage, for humans, and it creates the boundaries within which people remake themselves. In other words, Puerto Ricans do not just see the space, they read it and interpret what is in it.

99 These arguments refer to both the physical landscape and the objects in it. Metro- Orlando is physically different from the centers of the Puerto Rican diaspora of elsewhere on the mainland. Despite the large concentrations of Puerto Ricans, Metro-Orlando does not have something like “El Barrio” of New York or “Paseo Boricua” of Chicago, where Puerto Rican symbols are omnipresent. Contrary to the New York, Chicago and other experiences on the mainland, in Metro-Orlando Puerto Ricans are not spatially concentrated or segregated in the same densities. The Puerto Rican community of Metro- Orlando is spread through the metropolitan area and not concentrated in one or two pockets. Spatially, Orlando is different from cities in the northeastern and midwestern United States. The metropolitan area of Orlando, as is the case of the state of Florida, is characterized by lower population densities and more urban sprawl. Here growth has moved towards suburbanization, therefore, the spatial organization of this metropolitan area does not provide the conditions for highly dense urban areas, including, a densely populated Puerto Rican neighborhood. This reality is seen by Metro-Orlando’s Puerto Ricans as another factor evidencing their uniqueness and therefore incompatibility with the diaspora elsewhere in United States. On this issue, the university professor notes, “It looks like, to this date, that Puerto Ricans in Orlando are breaking the patterns of extreme segregation that we have seen among the Puerto Rican diaspora”. On the same matter, the director of the Puerto Rican newspaper argues,

The only place we have something that could resemble that [a Puerto Rican Barrio] is Kissimmee, but not even there is how people imagine, that Puerto Ricans live next to Puerto Ricans. Perhaps the place where you can find this to a certain degree is Buena Ventura Lakes, but besides there everything is far away. Boricuas live in Apopka, Deltona, and Haines City and they have to travel everywhere, distances here are far. The urban development here is like that, we do not have mass transportation systems like New York and Chicago. Here the community is divided into isolated smaller communities.

She is making reference to some Puerto Rican enclaves that can be identified in Metro- Orlando (Figure 4). In this regard, the City of Orlando, the City of Kissimmee, Buena

100 Ventura Lakes, and Poinciana show considerable concentrations of Puerto Ricans, although, not necessarily high densities.

Figure 8: Puerto Rican Enclaves in Metro-Orlando

Nonetheless, the present physical patterns on the landscape make the Metro- Orlando’s Puerto Rican community different. But this difference does not come from the lack of “Barrios” alone. It also responds to dispersion itself. Dispersion causes less contact among Puerto Ricans and more contacts with “outsiders”. Therefore, their experience of the landscape is different to the experience of the landscape of Puerto Ricans in New York, Chicago, and other places of the Puerto Rican diaspora elsewhere on the mainland. The messages they see and read on the landscape will be diluted into a

101 mix of Puerto Rican, mainstream American, general Hispanic, Afro-Americans, etc. They do not see a clear message of Puerto Ricanness, what they see is Puerto Ricanness blending with everything else that might be on the landscape. This is a serious obstacle for Puerto Ricans trying to build a sense of identity as a distinct community. As Peet (1998: 234) noted, “the landscape is a concrete visual vehicle of inculcation.” Therefore, far from the claims and allegations of its leaders, the Puerto Rican community is susceptible to hybridization, and perhaps complete assimilation.

A Hybrid Community Orlando’s Puerto Ricans, regardless of their notions of Puerto Ricanness and their claims of authenticity, are becoming a hybrid community. Puerto Ricans in Metro- Orlando are adopting customs from the American culture at the expenses of their own. As Brah and Coombes (2000: 9) put it, “groups give signs of hybridity with the emergence of new cultural forms which have derived from apparent borrowings, exchanges and intersections across ethnic boundaries”. In the case of Metro-Orlando, Puerto Ricans are starting to show such signs. Language, as noted in my content analysis, is the first sign of this hybridity among Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando, and also the most controversial. Spanish is a central factor for the definition of national identity, both in the island and in Metro- Orlando’s Puerto Rican community. Affiliation and claims of authenticity are being made based largely on language. In Metro-Orlando, language symbolizes the main differences between Puerto Ricans and Nuyoricans. In that regard, when the interviewees were inquired about language, what language they use at home and their everyday life, revealing information was received. City Commissioner #2 says,

Unfortunately we use English. We came here with a different attitude. When we first came here I told my children that we are not going to watch any television in Spanish any more. The first thing I did was to look for an American church with English service. We acculturated, we assimilated the language, but that does not mean we completely renounced to our things, because we still eat rice and beans, the music is always the same, we go to Puerto Rico once in a while. Regardless that, we have maintained the culture… besides the language, everything else is the

102 same. My children do not speak Spanish, but my husband and I do when we are alone.

On the same subject, the president of the Puerto Rican association in Metro-Orlando notes “My grandchildren do not like to speak Spanish. Now I live with them and I speak Spanish to them, so now they are speaking more in Spanish.” Similarly, and more reveling, is the comment of the director of the Puerto Rican newspaper on this, she said

I will tell you more… the next generations are not going to speak Spanish, regardless how hard their parents try. Everyone wants their children to speak Spanish, but that is getting into a very difficult task. The only place where they speak some Spanish is at home. Their surroundings are in English, they have to use English at school, and their friends speak English. They were born speaking English. Contrary to the case of New York, where they speak both languages, this community will be completely Anglo; the new generations are Anglo, completely assimilated. I have the case of a coworker, his daughter refuse to speak Spanish, she told her father that she is American and because she was born in the U.S. she is American.

These responses coincide with the situation of the interviewed common Puerto Ricans. Through their case it can be seen the difference between Spanish use at home and outside the home. Even though 43 percent speak Spanish at home, those who use English or a combination of Spanish and English outside the home outnumber the only-Spanish speakers. In this regard, 21 percent said they use only English at work or school, and 57 percent said they use both Spanish and English. Similarly, 86 percent said they use both Spanish and English with their friends. These results imply that regardless of the fact that Puerto Ricans may speak Spanish at home, English is rapidly becoming their everyday life mean of communication outside home. As discussed in Chapter Six, language is not only the center factor of group membership, it is also fundamental for social identity (Giles and Johnson 1981, 1987). Therefore, the fact that Spanish is becoming a secondary language for Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando will have a direct effect on the collective identity of the community.

103 In this regard, the new generations in Metro-Orlando are assimilating more easily and faster to the American culture. The adults are trying to build a concept and collective Puerto Ricanness based on their desires and aspirations, but their offspring are not following the same path. As can be seen in the interviewees’ comments, the young Puerto Ricans are moving away from what the adults and first generation migrants have defined as Puerto Rican. In that regard, these new generations in Metro-Orlando are becoming a Floridian version of Nuyorican, they are becoming “Orlandoricans”. For example, the same Puerto Rican pastor that argued that the Puerto Rican community is getting stronger because they have achieved the formation of Puerto Rican institutions, notes “I offer the church service in Spanish, but we have a simultaneous translation into English. I am organizing an English service for our youth and the Anglo community”. He and his church, as will sooner or later be the case for the rest of the community, are adapting to the reality and circumstances of these second and third generation Puerto Ricans in Central Florida. This observation implies the hybridization of Puerto Ricans in Metro- Orlando. As Kraidy (2005) has argued, “being hybrid is to create an identity based in the host country but drawing its emotive energy from the native county”. They are accepting elements from American culture and integrating them to their everyday life. Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando are realizing that regardless of the fact that they wish to preserve Spanish, English is much needed. Contrary to the other well-established Puerto Rican centers on the mainland, where Spanish is widely used in the formal social structures, the case of the Orlando metropolitan area is different. In Metro-Orlando, outside of their homes and some isolated places, one cannot get by speaking only Spanish. “We need English. There have been some efforts to offer some bilingual services in Orlando, but is not enough. In the majority of the hospitals here, if you do not speak English you are in big trouble”, notes the director of the Puerto Rican newspaper. She also explained

For example, our newspaper was established in Orlando from the island by the Ferré-Rangel Company. They decided to open the newspaper here following the census numbers that showed a large Puerto Rican population in Central Florida. The truth was that regardless what the census said, the numbers did not reflect the

104 reality. There were not that many Puerto Ricans after all, at least not Spanish readers, because our newspaper is in Spanish, and there are some sectors of that Puerto Rican community that do not read in Spanish. Therefore they are not interested in the newspaper. We realized we needed to target another public, a public interested in a Spanish newspaper, a more general Hispanic public.

On the same line, the Puerto Rican pastor argued

Young people are different. Those who were born here and the young people who come from the island come with a different mentality. I think the youth coming here is coming to get integrated. That is why I say that here Puerto Ricans are going to be more assimilated than the case of Puerto Ricans in New York. In New York you have the Puerto Rican spaces like El Barrio where it was not necessary to speak English. Here we do not have such spaces. Here we are obligated to learn English and get more integrated. Then, the youth do not have strong cultural foundations, so they will accept the pressure, the assimilation.

On the other hand, when average Puerto Ricans were asked if they think Puerto Ricans in the U.S. are losing their Puerto Ricanness, over 55 percent do not think so. Their response regarding assimilation and the next generations are interesting. To the question “Do you think the next generations are more Americanized than your generation?”, over 70 percent answered affirmatively (Figure 9). Young Puerto Ricans, in the second, third, and other generations in Metro-Orlando, are becoming more assimilated and Puerto Ricans adults are conscious of this trend. Such assimilating patters are extremely important for the construction of Puerto Ricanness. As Berry (1997) suggests, assimilation occurs when the individual decides not to maintain their original culture. Therefore, assimilation brings more complexity to the formation of Puerto Rican identities in Metro-Orlando, not only because it alters Metro-Orlando’s definitions of Puerto Ricanness, but also because it implies the renegotiation of such notions. Consequently, Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando could become Orlandoricans. However, these patterns do not mean that the current community completely accepts such assimilation. In their minds, these “borrowings” do not necessarily mean

105 assimilation or complete acculturation. Nor does it mean they are less Puerto Rican, or that this represents a threat of becoming what they have constructed as the “other”, the Nuyorican. On the other hand, they seem to accept these “borrowings” from the American culture. On this issue, City Commissioner #2 affirmed

You can assimilate to other culture without renouncing yours. In my case, it was something very conscious. I did not want my children to speak with an accent because I knew one thing; I was not going back to Puerto Rico. Therefore, my children needed to speak English without the accent so they could be successful in this country.

On the same matter, the County Commissioner observed

The generation of my grandchildren is going to be divine. At home we speak Spanish to my grandson. However, he has a nana, and she speaks English to him. That is the example of how that generation is going to be, completely bilingual.

s 60 50 40 30 20

Percent of Respondent of Percent 10

0 Do you think that Puerto Ricans in Do you think your children are

the United States are losing their more Americanized than your Puerto Ricanness? generation?

Yes No

Figure 9: Puerto Ricanness and Americanization in Metro-Orlando Source: Author’s fieldwork

106 Evidently, Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando are becoming more accustomed to American ways. However, for the Metro-Orlando community this is more a borrowing, or an addition, than a substitution or a loss. In this sense, they are constructing a hybrid collective identity, or as Bhabha (1994) put it, multiple-constituted subjects, generally, a bilingual Puerto Ricanness in which Puerto Rican traditions blends with American customs.

Conclusions The Puerto Rican community of the Orlando metropolitan area shows particular aspects. This is one where circular migration is not as significant as is the cases of the other historical Puerto Rican communities on the mainland. A large number of the Puerto Ricans migrating to Metro-Orlando moved permanently, and they made this decision before arriving in Central Florida. They expressed their decision not to go back to Puerto Rico, so they made Central Florida their home. The fact that the community developed a series of cultural, social, economic, religious, and political institutions that they can claim as Puerto Rican is evidence of their determination to stay. However, they are also integrating to the dominant Anglo culture faster, and seem to accept that integration to a certain degree. Perhaps this integration is an effect of the spatial organization of this new setting where they are developing the community. The fact that in Central Florida there are no “barrios” or dense Puerto Rican segregated pockets could have an effect on this assimilation. There is an absence of Puerto Rican landscapes to produce and reproduce Puerto Ricanness among the new generations in Metro-Orlando. Dispersion causes less contact with their own group and more contact with other “outsider” groups. Consequently, regardless of the existence of some institutions scattered throughout the whole metropolitan area, Puerto Ricans are becoming more familiar with Anglo spaces. These spaces are becoming part of their daily lives, producing a notion of hybridization and ultimately, acceptance and assimilation. Metro-Orlando’s Puerto Ricans are becoming aware of the fact that they belong to a community that is split between two distinct cultures. They are constructing a hybrid collective identity where they feel Puerto Rican. But at the same time they do not need to be “strictly” Puerto Rican, in the sense that they are willing to integrate English and other

107 American cultural traits into their Puerto Ricanness. In that regard, one of the most distinctive particularities of this community is that, regardless of the fact that they are accepting hybridity, they still differentiate themselves from Nuyoricans, creating a different collective identity. They are creating an identity of belonging to both and to neither, or to use Bhabha’s (1994: 219) words, “neither one not the other but something else besides, in-between”. On the other hand, this acceptance of hybridity could be a sign of a desire to hold onto their Puerto Ricanness. Hybridity is also a manifestation of resistance to homogenization or complete assimilation. As Prabhu (2007: 12) put it, “hybridity is intimately linked to the question of resistance to homogenization or assimilation and it thus implies an engagement with what we might broadly call sub-altern agency”. In this sense, Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando engage in an identity-making process that is characterized by complexity and multiplicity. Puerto Ricans do not accept homogenization but rather they accept “borrowing” in a community that in the future might be known as the Orlandoricans.

108

CHAPTER VIII

SITES OF PUERTO RICANNESS

Spaces, places and landscapes are very important in the construction of collective consciousness and therefore identity. Through its symbolic qualities, the cultural landscape serves to naturalize or concretize social relations (Schein 2003: 203). The landscape is not just a cause of society, it is constructed and serves to naturalize, make normal, or provide the means to promote and institutionalize particular ways, forms, and norms in society. Landscape representation, interpretation, and collective memory are interrelated to the processes of identity construction. It is critically important to explicitly draw out the relationship of the social to the spatial in order to understand how spatial patterns influence social and political practices (Gregory 1978). The landscape, in this sense, is a text that is read and provides a context within and upon which humans continue to work, and it provides the boundaries within which people remake themselves (Mitchell 2000). In this chapter, I explore how issues of identity are influenced by landscape representation and interpretation. I argue that Puerto Ricans in the United States are engaged in an identity-building process that heavily depends on the landscape to produce and reproduce their Puerto Ricanness. In that regard, processes of Puerto Rican identity- building are highly influenced by spatial phenomena. Therefore, the spatial context is relevant in the examination of the Puerto Rican identity making process. Consequently, I first explore the Puerto Rican spaces in Metro-Orlando as sites in which Puerto Rican identities are formed. Second, I discuss the role of social institutions as symbolic spaces where Puerto Ricanness is being produced and reproduced. Finally, I explore how the Orlando Puerto Rican Day Parade relates to the construction of collective consciousness and identity formation for Puerto Ricans.

109 Puerto Rican Spaces Puerto Rican spaces are sites in which Metro-Orlando Puerto Rican identities are formed and (re)shaped. Within these places, as Cornell and Hartmann (1998: 154) note, “social actors make claims, define one another, jockey for position, eliminate or initiate competition, exercise or pursue power, and engage in a wide array of other activities that variously encourage or discourage, create or transform, and reproduce or ignore identities”. It is here where the boundaries of affiliation or exclusion are drawn. These sites of Puerto Ricanness are inherently spatial. People do not only see space, they read it and interpret what is in it. Peet (1998) argued that the spatiality of the everyday generates fundamental self-consciousness. This self-consciousness, as culture, is a learned behavior of self-identification. The constitution of social groups occurs spatially, that is, social groups are a product of the specifics of locality (Marston 1988: 415). Therefore, spatial organization is fundamental to understanding how people make sense of themselves. Spatially, the Puerto Rican community of Metro-Orlando is scattered around the entire metropolitan area. This community does not have “barrios” or dense Puerto Rican segregated pockets. This reality complicates the creation of enclave spaces where particular aspects of Puerto Rican identity would be preserved. Dispersion implies little or no contact with anyone from their own community. Consequently, regardless of the existence of some institutions scattered throughout the metropolitan area, Puerto Ricans are becoming more familiar with Anglo or mainstream American spaces. These spaces are becoming part of their daily lives, producing a notion of cohabitation and ultimately, acceptance and assimilation. However, within this dispersion, there is some concentration. There are some places where Puerto Ricans represent a significant portion of the total population. In areas of the City of Orlando, the City of Kissimmee, Buena Ventura Lakes, and Poinciana, Puerto Ricans show considerable concentrations. Yet, these concentrations are not spatially visible. This reality is different to the main centers of the Puerto Rican diaspora elsewhere in the United States, where Puerto Rican symbols and landscapes are dominant. An example of this is Paseo Boricua in Chicago, a landscape that has the two largest Puerto Rican flags in the world. The flags are constructed of steel, each weighing

110 45 tons and measuring 59 feet vertically make this landscape represents a space of identity affirmation for the Puerto Ricans diaspora in the United States (see Appendix H for pictures of Paseo Boricua). However, in Metro-Orlando there are no dominant Puerto Rican symbols, nor distinct landscapes that someone can relate to Puerto Rico. When someone gets to one of these so-called “Puerto Rican concentrations” there is no immediate way to know where the boundaries are. Spatially and visually, there is no difference with other American neighborhoods or communities, and in the cases where a distinct landscape is noticeable, these spaces look more like a general Hispanic community than Puerto Rican. Stores, businesses and signs reflect an all Hispanic community. Here symbols from all Latin American countries blend together to create the “all in one” Hispanic community that has been created in the United States. The exception to this lack of emblematic landscapes in Metro-Orlando is the quantity of bumper stickers and Puerto Rican flags hanging from cars’ rear mirrors (Figure 10). These are the only visible signs of the Puerto Rican presence in these areas. However, these types of signs can be noticeable in the entire metropolitan area; the only difference is the frequency in which they can be seen in particular sections of Metro- Orlando. This is also the case of Puerto Rican businesses. Generally, Puerto Rican businesses are cafeterias, delis and restaurants. Yet, as a rule, from the outside these places appeal to a broader Hispanic public than just the Puerto Rican community (Figure 11). Only the insides of these restaurants alert one that he/she is in a Puerto Rican place. Food typically from Puerto Rico and Puerto Rican symbols on the walls remind people these spaces are not just Hispanic, but specifically Puerto Rican. These places, although they present some Puerto Ricanness, also present a larger Hispanity. Here Latin American cultures meet and mix, adding another element to the Puerto Rican hybridization. These restaurants, coffee shops, delis, etc. are as important as other symbolic landscapes, they are also places of socialization as they serve as meeting and interaction spaces. Here Puerto Ricans are not just becoming more familiar with American ways, but also with other cultural groups from Latin America. In this sense, the culture of the new home of Metro-Orlando, seen in everyday life, shapes the identity- making process for Puerto Ricans.

111

Figure 10: Puerto Rican Symbols in Metro-Orlando

Source: the author

Figure 11: Puerto Rican Businesses

Source: the author

112 “The assimilation is not only with the Americans, is also with other Latin American countries. The young Puerto Ricans are meeting young Venezuelans, Colombians, Costa Ricans… that is what I see here. I am seeing an integration of Central Americans and South Americans with Puerto Ricans, they are getting married. I see that all the time in my church”, argued the Puerto Rican pastor. Similarly, the director of the Puerto Rican newspaper observed

We realized we had to grow to other publics that might be interested in our newspaper. We modified the newspaper to reach a greater Hispanic community because before they did not understand us. We had too much “Puerto Rican” words on the newspapers that other Hispanic did not understand, so we modified the jargon.

The comments of these interviewees demonstrate the nature of these sites of Puerto Ricanness. It is evident that for Puerto Ricans identities, the elements of the landscape shape Puerto Ricans’ self-consciousness. The absent of clear Puerto Rican spaces in Metro-Orlando is particularly complex when defining the boundaries of Puerto Ricanness. We must not forget, as Berger (1972) argued, the landscape is both a place and a way of seeing. In that sense, Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando are crossing cultural boundaries in their everyday life without noticing any differences, and therefore, building identities accordingly. This reality is more problematic for second, third and other generations to come. The situation with these new generations in not that they cross cultural boundaries, but rather it is that they are growing up in such “mixed” landscapes. For them that is the reality, the norm, and consequently their identities will reflect such norms. As Schein (2003: 203) put it, “through its symbolic qualities, the cultural landscape serves to naturalize or concretize social relations”. In that sense, the landscape is becoming the heart of the complexity and multiplicity of Puerto Rican identities. It is through landscape interpretations that Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando are become more familiar with other cultures, and therefore the sites of negotiation and renegotiation of Puerto Ricans identities. Nevertheless, ethnic enclaves and population concentrations are not the only means to create spaces and landscapes of difference for the production and reproduction

113 of identities. Neighborhoods are important in the formation of identities, but so are other social institutions. As Marston (1988: 426) notes, “central to the socialization process, particularly in terms of producing knowledge that will be used to negotiate the world outside the ethnic neighborhood, are churches, schools, and voluntary associations because they dominant nodes through which day-to-day life is carried out and whole lives are filtered”. Therefore, for Puerto Ricans, social institutions are fundamental for the process of naturalization and concretization of social relations.

Social Institutions Symbolic spaces are substitutes for, and reminders of, the homeland. Substitute homeland spaces intend to reproduce homeland features such as food, music, language, and landscapes among others. Social institutions materialize those symbolic spaces of homeland reproduction. As Gregory (1995: 456) noted, “the construction of identity takes place as a contest involving individuals and institutions.” Consequently, social institutions assist Puerto Ricans in the process of constructing collective consciousness and producing senses of identity. On this matter, the university professor said

I think there are other means to create a sense of community that do not depend exclusively on locality. It is different, but it has been used in other places. Festivals and all kinds of cultural practices also allow Puerto Ricans from all generations to celebrate and affirm their national identity.

In Metro-Orlando, Puerto Rican social institutions include churches and social associations. These institutions facilitate the creation and protection of collective memory and the cohesiveness to form a community (Safran 2004). They also provide spaces for Puerto Rican expressions of identity. They are the visible “face” of the community and often its voice. Puerto Ricans come to these institutions to share their views and feelings. In the same way, consciously or unconsciously, they also “received” the norms or accepted perceptions, aspirations, and values of the community, as these institutions are full of collective memories, symbols and representations.

114 Among the prominent churches in Metro-Orlando, there are three with significant congregations. These churches have a combined membership of around 8,000. On this line, the Puerto Rican pastor argued

The biggest churches here are Puerto Ricans; you have one with a congregation of 3,000, you have the other pastor with around 2,000, and then you have us with over 3,000. We are talking about three churches that represent over 8,000 people, and 90 percent of those are Puerto Ricans.

These churches make Puerto Ricans more visible in Metro-Orlando, but they also leave an imprint on the landscape. The physical presence of these buildings, displaying religious symbols to which Puerto Ricans can relate, also provides boundaries of difference that can help the preservation of identities (Figure 12). But more important, these churches are places of gathering where people interact and produce a sense of community. Religious rituals reveal values at their deepest level because people express in them what moves them most (Wilson 1954: 241). Puerto Rican churches create an environment that separates them from the mainstream America. The main religious service is offered in Spanish, as well as other religious activates offered every day of the week. Here language sets boundaries of inclusion and exclusion, as Spanish is still identified as the language of Puerto Ricans. However, these churches are part of the cross-cultural complexity that created multiplicity for Puerto Ricanness. As the pastor noted, “I offer the church service in Spanish, but we have a simultaneous translation into English. I am organizing an English service for our youth and the Anglo community”. Consequently, despite the fact that the main environment that the churches present is Puerto Rican, having the churches’ names in Spanish, and showing Puerto Rican symbols such as the Puerto Rican flag and paintings showing landscapes from the island, they are adapting to the new circumstances of the Puerto Rican community in Metro-Orlando. Therefore, the “message” that Puerto Ricans might “read” from these churches is that of a community that both accepts and uses English and the American ways together with Spanish and the Puerto Rican ways. In that regard, these churches also serve as places of identity reproduction, as Puerto Ricans go there, socialize, and share experiences. Therefore, these institutions are sites where

115 Puerto Ricans not only learn about religion, but also learn about the accepted norms and values of the Puerto Rican community in Metro-Orlando.

Figure 12: Puerto Rican Church

Source: the author

Social associations also serve as facilitators to create and maintain the necessary cohesiveness to form the Puerto Rican community. In Metro-Orlando, these social associations focus on a cultural agenda. They work as meeting places to embrace and preserve their Puerto Ricanness as a culturally distinct group. Therefore, they are spaces where cultural practices are transmitted while a sense of community is reinforced. There are a series of associations in Metro-Orlando that organize Puerto Ricans. Among the most salient is the Asociación Borinqueña de Florida Central (Borinqueña Association of Central Florida) and La Casa de Puerto Rico (Puerto Rico House), both located in Orlando. These two are the most visible in terms of membership, and also they are the only two who have an actual building owned by the organization and dedicated to

116 their activities. There are other minor Puerto Rican associations and clubs around the metropolitan area that in some cases are dedicated to the organization of specific events. All of these organizations heighten the community’s sense of Puerto Ricanness through a series of cultural activities. They organize events such as concerts, conferences, art gallery exhibits, celebration of Puerto Rican national holidays, trips to the island, festivals, and the Puerto Rican Day Parade of Orlando and Central Florida. Through these events, these organizations transmit Puerto Rican values and customs to the next generations. However, despite their similar goals, each organization reaches different sectors of the community. The Asociación Borinqueña de Florida Central, which is the biggest in terms of membership, appeals to a professional population. They are more formal than the other organizations. The Asociación Borinqueña de Florida Central is intimately liked to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Metro Orlando. The organizations often celebrate and hold activities together, and the HCCMO1 use the facilities of the Asociación Borinqueña de Florida Central to have their event. The Asociación Borinqueña de Florida Central has an impressive office/activities building that has become an icon, and perhaps the only noticeable one, of the Puerto Rican community in Central Florida (Figure 13). When someone walks into their building, it gives a sense of a governmental office or official institution than a cultural association. Puerto Rican symbols are everywhere, from the façade of the building to the walls within. The building façade resembles Old San Juan’s Spanish fortifications, specifically the garita, or sentry box. These garitas can be seen lining the walls and forts of Old San Juan, and they had become one of Puerto Rico's official symbols and appear on just about everything official. On the inside, the building displays Puerto Rican flags and paintings of Puerto Rican landscapes. The association meets once a month and organizes events on special occasions. However, their activities are more formal, they organize conferences, banquets, galas and bingos. The membership is Puerto Rican, with minor attendance of members of other Hispanic groups for special events.

1 The Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Metro Orlando (HCCMO) originated as a result of a merger between two separate and distinct Chambers of Commerce: The Latin Chamber of Commerce of Central Florida, and the Puerto Rico Chamber of Commerce of Central Florida.

117

Figure 13: Asociación Borinqueña de Florida Central Source: the author

On the other hand, La Casa de Puerto Rico appeals to a different sector of the Puerto Rican community. They have a more informal structure with fewer influences among the larger Hispanic community of Central Florida. Its members are mainly blue- collar workers and retirees. Puerto Rican symbols are also displayed everywhere on their building. When one enters this space, it is like walking into a Puerto Rican family party; one can hear people talking and laughing, Puerto Rican music in the background, people in the kitchen moving pots presumably full of rice, and the sound of dominos on the table with an occasional argument disputing a bad move in the game. They have a more social and family oriented atmosphere that is reflected on the association’s physical structure, which is much smaller than the Asociación Borinqueña’s building (Figure 14). They use their organization as a place to meet to play dominos, bingo or just socialize in a regular basis. They have a monthly meeting with all the members, and they also organize special events on holidays and particular occasions such as members’ birthdays.

118

Figure 14: La Casa de Puerto Rico Source: the author

These organizations are seen as important places to pass on Puerto Ricanness. In that regard, the president of the Puerto Rican association noted

We have activities here… we organize social, cultural, and civil activities. However, the most important function we have is to help each other. We also celebrate important dates from Puerto Rico. For example, each month we have an activity called “Añoranza de Puerto Rico” (Nostalgia for Puerto Rico). In that activity we talk about Puerto Rico and teach people about the thing that are Puerto Rican, such as the municipalities, the national anthem… and all those things.

Similarly, the representative of the Government of Puerto Rico commented

To unify the community we have many organizations. We have Asociación Borriqueña, La Casa de Puerto Rico, the Puerto Rican Day Parade and many others. These organizations that I just mentioned to you organize different cultural and social activities… people go and meet there. That is important to unify all the Puerto Ricans.

As can be seen through the interviewees’ comments, these organizations have an important role in Puerto Rican identity formation and affirmation. They are seen as the instruments to embrace Puerto Ricanness and transmit Puerto Rican values and practices, as well as to unify Puerto Ricans into one community. However, it is important to

119 mention that these organizations appeal to a more adult population. From my visits to these organizations I noticed the absence of young people. The only youngsters there were infants and small children accompanying their parents. Therefore, regardless of the fact that these organizations are places of production and reproduction of Puerto Ricanness, where Puerto Rican customs and values are being practiced, such productions and reproductions do not reach the new generations. The youth is not accessing these places, and therefore, does not experience Puerto Ricanness in the same way adults do. In that sense, even though segments of the Puerto Ricans envision one community, and are trying to unify all Puerto Ricans under their notions of Puerto Ricanness, the reality is otherwise. The Puerto Ricanness that is being produced and reproduced in these organizations is not reaching the entire community, and therefore not effectively thwarting the increasing hybridization and assimilation of the new generations of Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando. Once again, this process reveals how Puerto Rican identities are constructed in ways full of complexity and multiplicity.

The Puerto Rican Day Parade of Orlando Festivals and parades are also related to the construction of collective consciousness and identity formation. Such rituals perform an important function in community building. Parades and pageantry often tend to celebrate local distinctiveness to reinforce the interest of local communities (Woods 1999). As Penrose (1993: 29) note, “central to the construction of community is also the articulation of a mystical bond between people and place”. Festival and parades not only create these bonds, but they also leave an imprint on the landscape that can be use to build up a collective identity. They make the community visible to non-members while displaying its power and organization. The Puerto Rican diaspora has been celebrating Puerto Rican Day Parades for 50 years. The first Puerto Rican Day parade was held in 1958 in New York City, replacing the former Hispanic Day Parade. At that time Puerto Ricans accounted for almost all Hispanics in New York City. In 1995, the parade became known as the National Puerto Rican Day Parade to include the entire Puerto Rican diaspora on the mainland. In addition to the National Puerto Rican Day Parade that takes place in New York, there are

120 currently over 50 smaller parades across the United States. These parades have been used to formally present Puerto Rican culture to Puerto Ricans and non-Puerto Ricans. On this matter, the university professor argued

These activities are seen, from the participants’ standpoint, as important to establish social networks and to create a sense of solidarity towards a common project. Also, they give the sensation of unity, that the community is united.

The Puerto Rican Day Parade of Orlando is an offshoot of these other parades, especially the National Puerto Rican Day Parade of New York City. Puerto Ricans in Central Florida have been celebrating this parade in Orlando for over 15 years. Through the use of symbols such as the Puerto Rican flag, cultural displays such as folkloric dances, distinctive songs and food, the parade represents the Puerto Rican community of Metro-Orlando (Figure 15). These cultural displays and traditions serve to inculcate certain values and norms of behavior (Hobsbawm 1983: 1). In the case of Metro-Orlando, as the vice-president of the committee responsible for the organization of the Puerto Rican Day Parade in Orlando observed

The Parade serves to promote Puerto Rican customs and introduce our culture to other people. The Parade is for the community to get to know themselves. We have been celebrating the Parade here in Orlando for nearly15 years. Before we used to have it at Festival Park, bust since last year we manage to get Eola Park, because before we were not allowed to do the parade on the downtown.

Since its beginnings, the Puerto Rican Day Parade of Orlando had a route that crossed Orlando to finish at Festival Park at the downtown’s eastern edge near Orlando’s Executive Airport. In 2007, the parade was allowed for the first time to end at Lake Eola Park in the heart of downtown Orlando; just six blocks to the northeast of the City Hall, and three blocks north of the Orange County Administration Building. However, one of the central paradoxes of festivals and parades, as Jackson (1988: 222) argues, “is its potential to serve both a socially integrative function and as a vehicle for the expression of power and resistance”. Puerto Ricans use these festivals and parades

121 to show their power to construct a self image and the perceptions others have of them. The Puerto Rican Day Parade shows who they are to the rest of the society and sends a message of how they would like to be seen as a community. In other words, these public displays make statements about prevailing social relations. As Davis (1986: 6) noted, “they are public dramas of social relations, and in them performers define who can be a social actor and what subjects are available for communication and consideration, to then shape the actions and alternatives people can imagine and propose”.

Figure 15: The Puerto Rican Day Parade of Orlando Source: the author

In Metro-Orlando, through these rituals, Puerto Ricans make statements about their presence as a community and their strength as a culturally distinct group. In response, they expect to receive messages of acknowledgment, respect and acceptance.

122 They expect those messages to come not only from the mainstream American society, but also from the local and regional institutions of power. In short, Puerto Ricans are demanding a space in society, and the Parade is one of the instruments they use to send out the message. Puerto Ricans have succeeded in sending these messages. The community has been celebrating the parade for nearly 15 years and has attracted large numbers of Puerto Ricans to participate in the activity. This demonstrated not only the community’s strength, but also its success. As Kong and Yeoh (1997: 215) argued, “collective participation in public rituals suggests affirmation of those values and norms being celebrated”. Similarly, the change of the parade’s route is an indicator of their success in sending such massages. As the vice-president of the committee responsible for the organization of the Puerto Rican Day Parade in Orlando observed

Now we have the downtown because the community is growing… politicians see that. Therefore is a matter of politics, we having the power to talk to the politicians. To tell you more, now both the mayor of the City of Orlando and the mayor of Orange County participate in the Parade. That means that we have to get a bit more involved on the political aspects of the community to obtain certain things.

As the vice-president of the committee responsible for the organization of the Puerto Rican Day Parade noted, the rerouting of the parade itself is a message of acknowledgment, respect and acceptance from the institutions of power in Metro- Orlando. As Jackson (1992: 131) put it, “the routing and re-routing of parades and its location are indicators of the limits that are set to the public recognition of minority groups by the state”. With the re-routing of the Puerto Rican Day Parade of Orlando, now ending in a festival on the heart of downtown Orlando, Puerto Ricans have accomplished a position of power in the mainstream American society of Orlando. Now they have a better position to be seen as an organized community not only from within, but also from the outside. The Puerto Rican Day parade of Orlando also creates links between Orlando and Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans use symbols such as the Puerto Rican flag, folkloric dances,

123 distinctive songs, food, and clothes of the homeland to create an “imagined community” (Anderson 1991) through their common ancestry. For some Puerto Ricans the parade is the only image that they have of Puerto Rico. Second and third generation mainland-born Puerto Ricans might have never been to Puerto Rico, but they can imagine Puerto Rico through the cultural displays and symbols shown in the parade. In this sense, the parade is not only a site of production and reproduction of Puerto Ricanness, but also a symbolic site where both island-born and mainland-born Puerto Ricans can articulate their history. In such sites, they develop a sense of uniqueness and enhance their Puerto Ricanness. The parade is also a space of reconciliation for Puerto Ricans. During this day, Puerto Ricans come together to celebrate their Puerto Ricanness regardless of their origins. Island-born and mainland-born Puerto Ricans forget their differences and celebrate their identities. As the representative of the Government of Puerto Rico noted

We can have cultural differences, because naturally those coming from the island will hold on more to their Puerto Ricanness. But when we go to those activities, there is no difference; we are all united as Puerto Ricans. You see people from New York, those who have moved from Chicago, from Hawaii… it does not matter, the patriotic sentiment is not different.

The parade organizers try to include all the segments of the Puerto Rican community as part of the parade. They invite representatives from other parts of the diaspora, like New York, Chicago, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut, as well as delegations from the island, which are never absent. As is the case of the National Puerto Rican Day Parade in New York, people from the island come to Orlando to participate in the activities. Institutions, private companies and the government of the island send their representations to Orlando. However, it is interesting that the celebration of the Puerto Rican Day Parade is an imported practice. The Puerto Rican community of Metro-Orlando, as has been the case in other places of the diaspora, adopted this ritual from New York. The current president of the group responsible for organizing the parade is a mainland-born Puerto Rican who moved from New York to Orlando. Therefore, despite the fact that the parade aims to present an united community, one should not ignore the differences that still exist within the community itself. Metro-Orlando’s Puerto Ricans, a community that does not

124 want to be associated with the Puerto Rican diaspora elsewhere on the mainland, adopted the ritual and their leaders have welcomed the opportunity to display the community’s power and strength. Yet this does not mean they comprise a homogenous community. This division can be also seen in the committee responsible for organizing the parade. The president is mainland-born and the vice-president is island-born. This division is evidence of the on-going discussion and conflict about who is the authentic voice of the community. Nonetheless, for a regular person attending the parade, there are no noticeable differences or signs of internal disputes within the community. In short, the Puerto Rican Day Parade of Orlando is a site of Puerto Ricanness where collective identities are being produced and reproduced, and where Puerto Ricans shape and reshape the ways others perceive them. This is a day to showcase their Puerto Ricanness through cultural elements such as dances, national symbols, clothing, music and food. For Puerto Ricans, these practices will ensure the affirmation of their identity as a culturally distinct community by the generations to come.

Conclusions The spatiality of the everyday generates the fundamental elements to understand how people make sense of themselves. Institutions constitute the means through which everyday life flows. As Marston (1988: 426) argued, “institutions are the main arenas within which knowledge is acquired, day-to-day routines acted out, and socialization learned”. Puerto Rican institutions provide the basis for the reproduction of a collective identity and create places for Puerto Ricans to construct and reaffirm their identity. Yet, the Puerto Ricanness that is being produced and reproduced in these organizations is not reaching the entire community, and therefore not effectively thwarting the increasing hybridization and assimilation of the new generations of Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando. Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando are becoming more integrated into American society. Their communities do not show any difference with other American neighborhoods or communities, and in the cases where a distinct landscape is noticeable, these spaces look more like a general Hispanic community than Puerto Rican. These places, although they present some Puerto Ricanness, also present a larger Hispanic identity. Here Latin American cultures meet and mix, adding another element to the

125 Puerto Rican hybridization. Therefore, the processes of Puerto Ricans’ self-consciousness are being influenced by landscape representations and interpretations. The Puerto Rican Day Parade of Orlando is closely related to the construction of Puerto Ricans’ collective consciousness and identity formation. The parade itself is a site of Puerto Ricanness, where collective identities are being produced and reproduced. It is also a site for Puerto Ricans to shape and reshape the ways others see and perceive them individually and collectively. This is a day to showcase Puerto Ricanness and display the cultural elements that makes them unique, such as dances, national symbols, clothing, music and food. All these institutions and Puerto Rican spaces are sites of Puerto Rican identity construction. Here identities are formed and reshaped. These are places to make claims of power and control over space to shape and reshape Puerto Ricanness. But more importantly, these Puerto Rican spaces, institutions, and rituals reveal the complexity and multiplicity behind Puerto Rican identities.

126

CHAPTER IX

CONCLUSIONS

This research has examined the processes of Puerto Rican identity construction in the Orlando metropolitan area of Florida. Puerto Ricans have been migrating to the mainland United States since the early 1900s, creating a diaspora that currently surpasses the total population of Puerto Rico. On the island, the existence of a diaspora is common knowledge. However, historically for Puerto Ricans in the island, to be in the United States literally meant to be in New York. This perception has changed in the last decade, as Puerto Ricans are now becoming more familiar with Florida. In addition, there exist numerous studies on Puerto Rican migration, diaspora, and identity in the United States mainly focusing on the cases of the well-established Puerto Rican centers such as New York City, Philadelphia, and Chicago. On the other hand, as this Florida migration is a current and ongoing phenomenon, relatively little has been written about it. As I conducted my interviews in different parts of the Orlando metropolitan area I immersed myself in the Puerto Rican community of Metro-Orlando. I noticed that all my interviewees were fluent in Spanish. They greeted me in Spanish before I was able to say a single word in English or Spanish. However, as the conversation progressed, all of them made use of English on several occasions. But they did not use English in a form of “Spanglish”, they used perfect English as part of their perfect Spanish. Similarly, as I conducted the survey among common Puerto Ricans, I became aware that a large majority, regardless of the fact that they selected the option of Spanish, seemed to prefer English as their main means of communication. This is a phenomenon that I encountered in the past with some of my Puerto Rican friends and schoolmates, many of whom are island-born. They seem to communicate better in English, even though they are fluent in Spanish. In many conversations I had with some of them, they always spoke to me in English even though they speak Spanish.

127 In this dissertation, I provide a comprehensive overview of Metro-Orlando’s Puerto Rican community, examining how Puerto Ricans are constructing a community that is characterized by complexity, multiplicity and hybridity. Puerto Ricanness is a contested term, as there are many Puerto Rican identities. Island-based and mainland- based Puerto Rican define, interpret, and experience Puerto Ricanness differently. Each individual experiences his or her surroundings differently, and this understanding is shaped by mental processes that make self-consciousness (Gold 1980). In this sense, the idea of a stable identity is replaced by a perspective of an identity with multiplicity of difference, contradiction, fluidity, contextuality, and dynamism (Pile and Thrift 1995). Another important factor this research addressed is landscape representation and interpretation, specifically, how issues of identity are influenced by landscape representation and interpretation. Human landscape and its symbolic contents play a central role in people’s lives. Landscape representation, interpretation, and collective memory are interrelated to the processes of identity construction. As Hoelscher (2003: 660) put it, “shared remembrances help identify a group, giving it sense of its past and defining its aspirations for the future”. For Puerto Ricans, the spaces facilitate socialization and exchange, allowing them to embrace their Puerto Ricanness. The main objective of this research has been to further the understanding of the processes of Puerto Rican identity construction in the Orlando metropolitan area of Florida. The central questions that I sought to answer were: 1) How is the Metro-Orlando diaspora being formed by both island-born and mainland-born Puerto Ricans? and 2) How do the interactions between them in a new setting affect the process of making Puerto Ricanness? In short, who can claim to be a Puerto Rican and how can that claim be legitimated culturally and politically? To accomplish my objectives, a synthesis of in-depth interviews, questionnaires, document analysis, and fieldwork was used. In-depth interviews included political leaders, community leaders, and religious leaders within the Puerto Rican community. The questionnaires were administered to “common Puerto Ricans”. Document analysis consisted of the analysis of publications and documents such as newspapers, similar studies, census data, archival material, and audiovisual material. Finally, site observations were used through the analysis of public displays of the Puerto Rican community,

128 specifically the Puerto Rican Day Parade of Orlando. Qualitative methods were used to analyze the data by building several broad themes of analysis used to address the research questions. The decision-makers quoted in this dissertation represent a sector of the Metro- Orlando Puerto Rican community that has the power to influence public opinion. They are visible figures of the community, important personalities with followers that consider them as the leaders of the community. Consequently, in their cases, processes of power relations are very much at play. They occupy positions of power and have the authority to define knowledge and draw boundaries of affiliation. As Keith and Pile (1993: 95) argue, “the ways in which people make sense of their lives is a necessary starting point for understanding how power relations structure society”, the power to decide provides the means to promote and institutionalized particular ways, forms, and norms in society. In the Orlando metropolitan area, these people have a greater ability to draw the boundaries of Puerto Ricanness than the general citizenry. Therefore, the opinions and positions of these “decision-makers” have direct implications on the processes of community building. For instance, the public position of the person representing the Government of Puerto Rico in Florida is not just a personal opinion; such opinion has a sense of legitimacy that can be seen as a formal governmental policy. In the same way, when the pastor of one of the three leading churches conducts his religious service, in a church with a congregation of over 3,000 persons, his perceptions of Puerto Ricanness reach a wide audience that will potentially echo such ideas. Similarly, the view of the director of the leading Puerto Rican newspaper in Metro-Orlando has a potential effect on public opinion in Central Florida. In the same manner, the opinion of politicians and elected official are influential for public opinion. Therefore, these interpretation of Puerto Ricanness are not only personal opinions of the general populace, they can rather be seen as a statement of the “official” sentiment of the Metro-Orlando Puerto Rican community. This research integrates various theories emphasizing the spatiality of identity, landscape representation and interpretation, identity construction, migration, diasporas, transnationalism, and hybridity. I first provided a theoretical overview of such theories in relation to Metro-Orlando’s Puerto Ricans. However, the present research draws on a constructionist approach. According to this approach, there is nothing absolute about the

129 processes or the end product, which describes the case of the Puerto Rican diaspora. In Orlando and elsewhere on the mainland, Puerto Rican identities have been built and dismantled over time. As Cornell and Hartmann (1998: 73) put it, “identities are changeable, contingent, and diverse.” Geographers have become more alert to the importance of place in the human experience, and consequently on the notion of identity. Individuals experience their surroundings, perceive things, understand their position in the world, and make sense of themselves (Gold 1980; Castells 1997; Peet 1998). The case study of Metro-Orlando Puerto Ricans, presented in this research, expands these ideas of place and its relation with human experience. As this dissertation has evidenced, Puerto Rican identities are not homogenous across spaces and within places. Puerto Ricans have lived and experienced different spatial contexts, resulting in different notions of Puerto Ricanness that are sensitive to such spatial variations. Therefore, Puerto Ricanness is directly related to space; it changes from place to place. This is evident as terms like “island-born Puerto Rican”, “mainland-born Puerto Rican”, and “Nuyorican” are still used as the main means to define affiliation, each label representing Puerto Ricans from different places. Yet, it is not only the use of different labels to identify Puerto Ricans from place to place, but the different connotations and definitions behind such labels that are important. For instance, as discussed in Chapter VI, “Nuyoricans” are associated with a different culture, behavior, aspirations, and language. Similarly, the Metro-Orlando experience is creating new notions of Puerto Ricanness. As discussed in Chapter VII, the new spatial setting of Metro-Orlando is directly influencing how Puerto Ricans are making sense of themselves. We must not forget that the spatiality of everyday concerns generates fundamental self-consciousness (Peet 1998). Consequently, Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando are building an identity based on what they think comes from the island, but is diferent from the rest of the Puerto Rican diaspora on the mainland. At the same time, they are themselves developing some cultural distinctions with Puerto Rico that, according to their own notions of Puerto Ricanness, are increasingly making them more “Nuyoricans” than “Puerto Ricans”. These differences are tied to the new spatial experiences of Metro-Orlando, and are

130 creating new notions of Puerto Ricanness that perhaps will result in a new label to represent Puerto Ricans in this new place: the “Orlandoricans”. Likewise, the case study of Metro-Orlando Puerto Ricans expands the theories of hybridity. It is well know that hybridity refers to the condition of being a multiply- constituted subject (Bhabha 1994). In other words, hybridity is understood in terms of fusion, mixture, mosaics, bilingualism or multilingualism, and cohabitation. Also, hybridity implies a degree of selective acculturation. As discussed in this dissertation, Metro-Orlando’s Puerto Ricans are accepting some aspects of the new culture in the host society. They are selecting the aspects of their culture that they will substitute for the ones taken from the host culture. In that sense, they are consciously constructing a hybrid identity that preserves some links to the island, but not necessarily completely rejecting Metro-Orlando’s mainstream American culture. This research also addressed the United States-Puerto Rico relationship that has been and still is a major influential factor in the processes of Puerto Rican self- consciousness. I wanted to understand how Puerto Ricans are making sense of themselves, how they define the boundaries of belonging, and how they construct Puerto Ricanness by understanding the long-lasting relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States. Puerto Rico has been a colony of the United States for more than a century. For Puerto Ricans, this relationship has caused important changes affecting their self-consciousness. Changes have fluctuated from becoming American citizen overnight to becoming a Commonwealth of the U.S. with no restrictions to move between the island and the mainland. Yet, the most predominant effect of this relationship has been a spectacular migration from the island to the mainland that has created a divided nation, with more people in the diaspora than on the island. Subsequently, I provided a portrait of the millions of Puerto Ricans who migrated to the United States over the past century. Puerto Rican migration to the United States has been chronologically and qualitatively determined by different phases. Puerto Ricans have been migrating to the U.S. since the early 1900s and the movements continue to this day. Consequently, this migration has caused the development of a diasporic community in the United States that embodies an important portion of Puerto Rican society. As a result, the existence of such a numerically impressive diaspora raises questions of

131 whether Puerto Rican identity should be defined strictly by the territorial boundaries of the island or beyond those, and whether there is one or many Puerto Rican identities. The Puerto Rican diaspora is not only impressive because of its numerical magnitude, but also because of its current development on the mainland. As this research has documented, the Puerto Rican diaspora on the mainland has been noticeable since the 1920s, however Puerto Ricans’ most recent migration patterns are challenging not only the already established Puerto Rican diaspora on the mainland, but also the concept of diaspora itself. Diasporas are more than just being outside, away, or dispersed. Diasporas distinctly attempt to maintain (real and/or imagined) connections and commitments to their homeland and recognize themselves and act as a collective community (Bhatia and Ram 2001: 2). The term diaspora, as Safran (1991) has noted, refers to more than a constructed common identity delimiting the boundaries that creates the terms “they” and “us”, but it also implies that diasporic subjects are not fully accepted by their host country, and see the ancestral home as a place of eventual return. In this regard, the Metro-Orlando’s Puerto Ricans case study presented in this dissertation challenges the traditional ideas and concepts of diaspora. As discussed in Chapter VII, Puerto Ricans in Central Florida do have a sense of community and wish to maintain connections with the island. Seen from that perspective, Metro-Orlando’s Puerto Ricans are part of the larger mainland Puerto Rican diaspora. However what challenges the concept of diaspora is that, regardless of the fact that Metro-Orlando’s Puerto Ricans can be identified as a diasporic community, they do not see themselves as equal or as part of the larger diasporic Puerto Rican community in the United States. Nor do these Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando hold onto the myth of returning to Puerto Rico. As well, they do not reject the customs of the host country; instead they accept such customs and become more assimilated. In that sense, Metro-Orlando’s Puerto Ricans are setting the foundations for the formation of a different type of “diasporic” community in Metro- Orlando. Such a community distinctly attempts to build and maintain networks of social, economic and political ties between the island and the mainland, acts and wishes to be recognized as a collective and distinct community, but does not desire to go back to the island. They are also distancing themselves from the rest of the diaspora at the same time as they get more accustomed to the American ways. In other words, Metro-Orlando’s

132 Puerto Ricans are constructing a diasporic community that defies the traditional conception of a diaspora. They are a diaspora, but not as a diaspora. In this sense, diasporas are not necessary conditioned to connections to their homeland, the construction of a common identity or the ideas of rejection by their host country and eventual return to the ancestral homeland. Diasporas can waive one or more of these “prerequisites” and still construct an identity as a collective community, delimiting the boundaries that create the terms “they” and “us”, and attempting to create and maintain connections with their homeland. Likewise, the Metro-Orlando’s Puerto Ricans case study presented in this dissertation challenges the concept of transnationalism. Transnationalism is commonly defined as a condition in which transborder relations persist among individuals who share a common culture and historical memory, a common experience of dispersal from and loss of a homeland, and a desire to symbolically maintain, or physically return to, that homeland (Cohen 1997: 26). However, the case of Metro Orlando Puerto Ricans confronts these traditional views of transnationalism. As discussed in this dissertation, Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando do share a common culture and historical memory, yet they do not perceive their community as a dispersed one. Once in Metro-Orlando, Puerto Ricans do not need to maintain direct relations with the island, nor do they need to visit Puerto Rico because they see Metro-Orlando as a “new” Puerto Rico. Thus they are not dispersed, nor have they lost their homeland because they feel that they are living in it. Therefore, people can have transnational lives in the absence of active and persistent transborder relations. Transnationalism can be shaped by present-day migration showing real or imagined networks of social, economic and political ties, but not necessarily implying a shared common experience of dispersal and loss of homeland that results in the development and sustaining of relations across borders. This dissertation provided a thick account of how Puerto Ricanness is constructed in Metro-Orlando, and how multiplicity and complexity of Puerto Ricanness are negotiated and renegotiated to construct the Puerto Rican community of Central Florida. As Keith and Pile (1993: 95) noted, “the ways in which people make sense of their lives is a necessary starting point to understand social structures”. Today, Florida’s Puerto Rican population numbers well over half a million. However, this diaspora is being

133 formed by island-born and mainland-born Puerto Ricans. Each group comes with its interpretation of Puerto Ricanness, each based on different origins, modes of economic, political and cultural incorporation, and values, traditions, beliefs and practices. In Metro- Orlando these differences can be seen as island-based Puerto Ricans distinguish themselves from mainland-based Puerto Ricans. These divisions and differences within the community reflect an internal conflict and struggle over claims of authenticity: who are the real Puerto Ricans. Despite the idea that “Puerto Ricans” believe they belong to one community, there are divisions and stereotypes that have been imported from the island that are creating conflicts in Metro-Orlando. I concluded with an analysis of how identity formation is influenced by landscape representation and interpretation. Puerto Ricans in the United States are engaged in an identity-building process where the landscape influences the processes of production and reproduction of their Puerto Ricanness. In that regard, processes of Puerto Rican identity- building are related to spatial phenomena. Therefore, the spatial context is relevant in the examination of the Puerto Rican identity-making process. Puerto Rican spaces in Metro- Orlando are sites in which Puerto Rican identities are formed and reformed. Such spaces allow the construction of collective consciousness and identity formation for Puerto Ricans. There can be identified several areas where the findings of this dissertation contribute to the understanding of the processes of Puerto Rican identity construction in the Orlando metropolitan area. First, Metro-Orlando’s Puerto Ricans are realizing that they belong to a community that splits over two distinct cultures. They are, as Pries (2001: 18) defines it, “a transnational community with social practices, artifacts and symbols systems that span different geographic spaces”. However, they are becoming more familiar with mainstream American society, accepting many of its customs and integrating them into their own. They are also constructing a hybrid collective identity at the same time they differentiate themselves from Nuyoricans. In the Orlando metropolitan area, terms like “island-born Puerto Rican” and “mainland-born Puerto Rican” or “Nuyorican” are still highly contested and used as the main means to define affiliation. Therefore, regardless of claims of Puerto Ricanness as a primordial phenomenon, when it comes to claiming membership in such community, the current

134 circumstances are what really matters. In this sense, those coming from the island are privileged in relation to those coming from elsewhere in United States. Another important aspect revealed by this research is that language is the central conflict for the Puerto Rican community. Spanish is a main factor in the construction of Puerto Rican identities in Metro-Orlando, but not because Puerto Ricans on the island speak Spanish and Puerto Ricans on the mainland speak English. The conflict of language resides on the dualism that has been created to justify the creation and maintenance of boundaries of inclusion and exclusion. Metro-Orlando Puerto Ricans are basing their arguments for the creation of such boundaries on cultural differences, Spanish usage being central. However, on the one hand they see Spanish as important and are almost “desperately” trying to pass it on to their children and grandchildren. But on the other hand, they search for different factors to maintain the boundaries of inclusion and exclusion as the new generations get accustomed to using English as their everyday language. In doing so, Puerto Ricans accept bilingualism, assimilation, and hybridity. The most important aspect this research uncovered consists in the fact that Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando are constructing a “new” Puerto Rico. They maintain the notions of difference between island and mainland Puerto Ricans as they reinforce the label of “Nuyorican”. Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando do not see themselves as equal or as part of the larger diasporic Puerto Rican community in the United States. Nor they have the myth of return that other Puerto Rican communities on the mainland have retained. In that sense, Metro-Orlando’s Puerto Ricans do not share the same notions and aspirations with the diasporic Puerto Rican community elsewhere on the mainland. These Puerto Rican communities elsewhere on the mainland have constructed a diasporic identity based on notions of commonality and a desire to go back to the island. This phenomenon is what sets the foundations for the formation of a different community in Metro-Orlando. This is a community that is distancing themselves from the rest of the diaspora and adopts the use of terms such as “Nuyoricans” to reinforce their authenticity claims. This way of thinking creates the sense that Puerto Ricans in Central Florida are not a diaspora, that they are beyond that, that they have Puerto Rico in Florida. In this sense, that is why they feel they do not need to go back to the island or have a circular migration between the island and the mainland in order to create and maintain

135 connections with Puerto Rico, and therefore be “real” Puerto Ricans. Nor do they need to construct particular landscapes to produce and reproduce their Puerto Ricanness, because they are in the new Puerto Rico; a direct extension of the island. However, regardless of their claims of difference, they are rapidly integrating into American society. They are developing cultural distinctions with Puerto Rico that, according to their own notions of Puerto Ricanness, are increasingly making them more “Nuyoricans” than “Puerto Ricans”. Another contribution to the understanding of the processes of Puerto Rican identity construction in the Orlando metropolitan area made by this research consists of revealing the role played by the landscape in the identity-building processes for Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando. It has been well documented that through its symbolic qualities, the cultural landscape serves to naturalize or concretize social relations (Schein 2003: 203), and that the landscape is read and provides a context within and upon which humans continue to work, providing the boundaries within which people (re)make themselves (Mitchell 2000: 102). This is the case for the well-established Puerto Rican diaspora elsewhere in the mainland. Puerto Ricans in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, and other places where the Puerto Rican diaspora has been historically concentrated have created distinctive landscapes that are and have been used as a vehicle to produce and reproduced their Puerto Ricanness. One only needs to visit West Division Street in Chicago or Spanish Harlem in Manhattan to “feel” the Puerto Rican diaspora. However, in Metro-Orlando one cannot see such distinct landscapes. Puerto Ricans in Metro- Orlando are not building “Puerto Rican landscapes” to produce and reproduce their Puerto Ricanness. Yet, they are constructing a sense of community and claim authenticity as “real” Puerto Ricans. As discussed in this dissertation, this behavior is in part because Metro-Orlando Puerto Ricans do not perceive themselves as a diaspora and are constructing a notion of a new Puerto Rico in Central Florida. Consequently, they do not need to build “Puerto Rican landscapes” to produce and reproduce their Puerto Ricanness, as is the case of the Puerto Rican diaspora elsewhere on the mainland. Thus, Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando, as the Puerto Ricans in the island, are “in” Puerto Rico, therefore the production and reproduction of Puerto Ricanness is everywhere.

136 In this sense, Puerto Rican institutions in Metro-Orlando provide the basis for the reproduction of their collective identity. They create places for Puerto Ricans to construct and reaffirm their identity. These institutions serve to reinforce the notions of the new Puerto Rico in Metro-Orlando, and therefore create a collective identity as Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico and not in the diaspora. Yet, the Puerto Ricanness that is being produced and reproduced in these organizations is not reaching the entire community, and therefore not effectively thwarting the increasing hybridization and assimilation of the new generations of Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando. In that regard, Orlando’s Puerto Rican Day Parade is very much related to the construction of Puerto Ricans’ collective consciousness and identity formation. The parade itself is a site of Puerto Ricanness, where collective identities are being produced and reproduced. It is also a site for Puerto Ricans to shape and reshape the ways others see and perceive them individually and collectively. This is a day to showcase Puerto Ricanness and display the cultural elements that makes them unique, such as dances, national symbols, clothing, music and food. The parade is also a space of reconciliation for Puerto Ricans. During this day, Puerto Ricans come together to celebrate their Puerto Ricanness regardless of their origins. Island-born and mainland-born Puerto Ricans forget their differences and celebrate their identities. Identity is a phenomenon involving negotiation, contestation, and constitution (Keith and Pile 1993). As Cornell and Hartmann (1998: 57) note, “individuals and groups have the power to emphasize or ignore their own identities when such identities are in some way advantageous or disadvantageous to them”. Puerto Ricans in Orlando choose what elements of their identity are more convenient at different times and circumstances. When it comes to social acceptance and economic integration, they display their adaptability as “thin” Puerto Ricanness. On the other hand, when it comes to national pride, they display a “thick” Puerto Ricanness with claims of cultural differences and links with the island. Analyzed in this way, as Cornell and Hartmann (1998: 80) put it, “construction involves both the passive experience of being made by external forces, including not only material circumstances but the claims that other persons or groups make about the groups in question, and the active process by which the group makes itself”.

137 The present research fills a gap in the literature on Puerto Rican migration, diaspora, and identity in the United States by revealing the paramount role that concepts such as landscape representation and interpretation, transnationalism, and hybridity play in the formation and shaping of Puerto Rican communities on the mainland. Most research on Puerto Rican migration, diaspora, and identity (e.g., Alers-Montalvo 1985; Fitzpatrick 1987; Padilla 1987; Rodríguez 1989; Flores1993; Cruz 1998; Velázquez 1998; Daniel 2000; Pérez 2000; Duany 2002; Falcón 2004; Anselmo and Rubal-López 2005; Whalen 2005; Acosta-Belén, and Santiago 2006; Duany and Matos-Rodríguez 2006; Sánchez 2007), overlooks the spatiality of identity and are centered on the well- established Puerto Rican centers of New York City, Philadelphia, and Chicago. Similarly, the studies focusing on the case of Florida are limited and their consideration of these elements aiding the processes of identity formation for Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando has been less well explored. Similarly, the present research compares with other recent work on suburban immigrant communities in the United States. These researchers work with the model of spatial assimilation, which envision suburbanization as a distinct phase in an overall process whereby members of ethnic minorities improve their residential situations as they acculturate and achieve socioeconomic success (Alba et al. 1999: 446). In that regard, such recent studies have found that spatial proximity of minority groups to the Anglo majority is a key indicator of, and in some cases a precursor to, more general processes of assimilation (Alba and Nee 1997; South, Crowder, and Chavez 2005). Sharing neighborhoods often means sharing institutions, such as schools, where contacts between minority and majority groups can develop, which implies that minority-group members have access to the same local amenities and resources as members of the majority group (Logan and Alba 1993; Massey and Denton 1993; South, Crowder, and Chavez 2005). In the case of Metro-Orlando’s Puerto Ricans, these processes of spatial assimilation are very much at play. Contrary to the New York, Chicago and other experiences on the mainland, in Metro-Orlando Puerto Ricans are not spatially concentrated or segregated in an ethnic enclave within the city. The Puerto Rican community of Metro-Orlando spreads throughout the metropolitan area, crossing city and county boundaries. Spatially, Orlando is different from cities in the northeastern and

138 midwestern United States. The metropolitan area of Orlando, as is the case throughout much of the state of Florida, is characterized by lower population densities and more urban sprawl. Here growth has moved towards suburbanization, therefore, Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando are susceptible to spatial assimilation. Their spatial proximity to the Anglo majority in Metro-Orlando is stimulating processes of assimilation. Yet, these processes of assimilation are more dramatic among the Orlando-born Puerto Ricans, as they have become a driving force behind the assimilation of Metro-Orlando’s Puerto Ricans. This project has unveiled the complexity and multiplicity behind Puerto Rican identities, particularly in the Orlando metropolitan area. Puerto Ricans in Metro-Orlando are constructing multiple notions of Puerto Ricanness based on different cultural, political, and spatial ideas and experiences. Identities are being formed and reshaped as the community grows and claims a position in society. There are certainly many interesting issues that remain to be studied regarding Puerto Rican identity construction in Florida. For example, it is important to develop a more in-depth examination of specific socioeconomic factors in the community and its relation to the distribution of power and claims of authenticity. Another interesting research direction concerning Puerto Rican identity construction in Central Florida would be to examine the impact of Puerto Rican integration on participation in the electoral system of Central Florida. In that sense, it would be interesting to examine how do Puerto Ricans vote and why. In others words, do Puerto Ricans vote for Puerto Rican or Hispanic candidates, and if so why? As well, do the political issues on the island influence in any way their electoral decisions in Central Florida? These examples are only a few among the numerous examples of possible directions to expand on this study of Puerto Rican identity construction. Ultimately, I hope this research has enriched our understanding of these new migration flows of both mainland and island-born Puerto Ricans, and will inspire new studies of this community.

139

APPENDIX A

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

A. Personal Information 1. Name/gender/age/marital status/birth place 2. Occupation/educational level/current job 3. Which high school did you graduated from? 4. What was the language of instruction at your high school? 5. University Degree? From which University? Where? 6. Children living with you? How many? Ages?

B. Language 7. What language do you speak at home? 8. What language do you speak at school/work? 9. What language do you speak with your friends?

C. Migration 10. When did you first come to Florida? 11. For how long have you been in Florida? 12. Why did you migrate to the Florida? 13. Do you come from the Island or the mainland? a. From what municipality/state? 14. Do you prefer to live in a Puerto Rican community? Why?

D. Everyday Life 15. What are the main difficulties that you have face/are facing living in Orlando? 16. What factors were important in helping you adjust to life in Orlando? 17. Do you celebrate Puerto Rican holidays? 18. Do you go to the Puerto Rican parade? Why? a. Is it important? Why? 19. Are you a member of any Puerto Rican organization?

E. Contact with Puerto Rico 20. Have you ever been to Puerto Rico? 21. How often do you go to Puerto Rico? 22. When was your last visit to Puerto Rico? 23. Do you maintain any contact with family/friends in Puerto Rico? How?

F. Puerto Ricanness 24. How do you identify yourself, Puerto Rican, American, or both? Why? 25. What does it mean to you to be a Puerto Rican?

140 26. What elements are important in order to be a Puerto Rican? 27. Who are Puerto Ricans? 28. Do you think that Puerto Ricans in the United States are losing their Puerto Ricanness? a. If yes, what are some signs of that? 29. Do you think your children are more Americanized than your generation? a. If yes, what are some signs of that?

G. Different Identities 30. Do you see any differences between island-born and mainland-born Puerto Ricans? a. If so, what are some examples of such differences? 31. Do you think it is important to speak Spanish to be Puerto Rican? 32. How is Puerto Ricanness being constructed, as a single group identity? As many identities? As a Hybrid identity?

141

APPENDIX B

QUESTIONNAIRE

Questionnaire

Please answer the following questions by filling in the corresponding information. All of your responses will be completely confidential.

1. What is your age? ______

2. What is your gender?

Male

Female

3. What is your Marital Status?

Single

Married

Divorce/Widow

4. What is your occupation? ______

5. What is your current educational level?

None

High School or less

Associate Degree or Technical School

University

Graduate or beyond

6. Where were you born? ______

7. Where your parents were born? ______

8. When did you first come to Metro-Orlando? ______

9. For how long have you been in Metro-Orlando? ______

142

10. Do you come from:

Puerto Rico Which municipio? ______

Another state Which one? ______

11. Have you ever been to Puerto Rico?

Yes

12. Do you maintain any contact with family/friends in Puerto Rico?

Yes

13. What was the main reason why you came to Metro-Orlando? ______

14. What language do you speak at home? ______

15. What language do you speak at school/work? ______

16. What language do you speak with your friends? ______

17. Do you prefer to live in a Puerto Rican community?

Yes Why? ______

18. Do you go to places where most people are…

Puerto Rican

Americans

Both Puerto Rican and Americans

Other ethnicities/nationalities

All of the above

19. Your friends are mainly …

Puerto Rican

143

Americans

Both Puerto Rican and Americans

Other ethnicities/nationalities

All of the above

20. Do you go to the Orlando Puerto Rican parade?

Yes

21. Are you a member of any Puerto Rican organizations?

Yes

22. How do you identify yourself?

Puerto Rican

American

Puerto Rican and American

Other Specify ______

23. In your opinion, what elements are important in order to be a Puerto Rican?

______

24. Do you think that Puerto Ricans in the United States are losing their Puerto Ricanness?

Yes Why Yes ______

25. Do you think your children are more Americanized than your generation?

Yes

144 N/A

26. Do you see any differences between island-born and mainland-born Puerto Ricans?

Yes Specify ______

27. Do you think it is important to speak Spanish to be Puerto Rican?

Yes Why? ______

145

APPENDIX C

LIST OF CODES

Code-Filter: All ______

• Agglomeration patterns • Assimilation to the dominant culture • Puerto Rican “colonias” • Puerto Rican Day Parade as important facto for Puerto Ricanness and the community • Puerto Ricans from the island are different from Puerto Ricans from New York • Walt Disney World as an actor in creating the Puerto Rican community • The Puerto Rican Government involvement in Orlando • Language as a critical factor in Puerto Rican identity • Spanish as a main element for island-born Puerto Ricans • Florida-born Puerto Ricans loosing their Spanish • “Nuyoricans” do not speak Spanish • Institutions as facilitators to create and maintain collective memory and cohesiveness to form a community • Migration to Florida is different form migration to other parts of the USA • Puerto Rican organizations and associations play an important role in the community • The Orlando community political power • Puerto Ricans come to Orlando for different reason, not similar to the reasons why Puerto Ricans migrated to other parts of the USA • Florida’s Puerto Ricans are professionals and more educated that Puerto Ricans in other states • Puerto Ricanness as primordial • Definition and notions of Puerto Ricanness to include children and relatives born in Florida • Puerto Ricans and American Citizens • Life in Orlando is different from other states. • The different urban pattern of Metro-Orlando influences the community. • There is no circular migration in Orlando; Puerto Ricans do not want to go back to the island.

146

APPENDIX D

ATLAS.TI SOFTWARE

In this case, the transcription of the county commissioner along with some of the codes used in the analysis.

147

APPENDIX E

SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS

Questions % 1) Age 18-25 21 26-40 14 41-55 36 56 + 29 2) Gender M 21 F 79 3) Education None or some school 0 High school diploma 0 Associate/technical degree 21 Bachelors degree 29 Graduate degree 14 No Answer 36 4) Place of Birth Puerto Rico 79 United States 21 Other 0 5) Parents' Place of Birth Puerto Rico 100 United States 0 Other 0 6) Do you maintain any contact with family/friends in Puerto Rico? Yes 100 No 0 7) What was the main reason(s) why you came to Metro-Orlando? Quality of life/work 57 education 21 Retirement 14 Family moved 21 8) What language do you speak at home? Spanish 43 English 14 Both 43 Other 0 9) What language do you speak at school/work? Spanish 14 English 21 Both 57 No Answer 8

148 10) What language do you speak with your friends? Spanish 7 English 7 Both 86 Other 0 11) Do you prefer to live in a Puerto Rican community? Yes 36 No 36 No Answer 28 12) Do you go to places where most people are… Puerto Rican 21 American 7 Both 7 Other/all ethnicities/nationalities 36 No Answer 29 13) Your friends are mainly … Puerto Rican 14 American 7 Both 21 Other/all ethnicities/nationalities 36 No Answer 22 14) Do you go to the Orlando Puerto Rican Day Parade? Yes 57 No 43 15) Are you a member of any Puerto Rican organization? Yes 36 No 64 16) How do you identify yourself? Puerto Rican 79 American 0 Both Puerto Rican and American 21 Other 0 17) In your opinion, what elements are important to be a Puerto Rican? Born in the island 36 Island-born parents 79 Pride 64 Language 14 Contact with the island 21 18) Do you think that Puerto Ricans in the United States are losing their Puerto Ricanness? Yes 43 No 57 19) Do you think your children are more Americanized than your generation? Yes 70 No 30

20) Do you see any differences between island-born and mainland-born Puerto Ricans? Yes 86 No 14 The way they grew up 7 Their behavior 57 Their education 50 Their values 14 They advertise themselves too much 21

149

21) Do you think it is important to speak Spanish to be Puerto Rican? Yes 84 No 14 No Answer 2

150

APPENDIX F

CAMPAIGN IN DEFENSE OF THE SPANISH LANGUAGE UNIVERSIDAD DEL SAGRADO CORAZON

151

152

153

APPENDIX G

"EN MI VIEJO SAN JUAN" BY NOEL ESTRADA

Spanish English (original version) (translation)

En mi viejo San Juan, In my Old San Juan, cuantos sueños forjé many dreams I forged En mis noches de infancia. in my childhood nights. Mi primera ilusión My first illusion, y mis cuitas de amor and my troubles of love son recuerdos del alma. are memories of the soul. Una tarde me fui hacia extraña nación, One afternoon I departed for a foreign nation, pues lo quiso el destino. that's how destiny would have it. Pero mi corazón se quedó junto al mar But my heart remained at the seas, en mi viejo San Juan. in my Old San Juan.

Adiós... adiós, adiós Goodbye… goodbye, goodbye Borinquen querida, My dear Borinquen, tierra de mi amor. land of my love Adiós... adiós, adiós Goodbye… goodbye, goodbye mi diosa del mar... my Goddess of the Sea, mi reina del palmar. my Queen of the palm grove. Me voy pero, un día volveré I'm leaving, but someday I'll return a buscar mi querer to search for what I want a soñar otra vez, to dream once again, en mi viejo San Juan. in my Old San Juan.

Pero el tiempo pasó But time passed me by, y el destino burló and destiny fooled mi terrible nostalgia. my terrible nostalgia. Y no pude volver And I could not return al San Juan que yo amé, to the San Juan that I loved, pedazito de pátria. little piece of my land. Mi cabello blanqueó My hair turned white, y mi vida se va, my life has left, ya la muerte me llama. death is calling me. Y no quiero morir I do not want to die far away from you, Alejado de ti Puerto Rico of my soul. Puerto Rico del alma.

154

APPENDIX H

PASEO BORICUCA, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

Picture by the Author

155 Picture by the Author

156

APPENDIX I

APPROVAL MEMORANDUM FROM THE HUMAN SUBJECTS COMMITTEE

Office of the Vice President For Research Human Subjects Committee Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2742 (850) 644-8673 . FAX (850) 644-4392

APPROVAL MEMORANDUM

Date: 6/28/2007

To: Luis Sánchez

Address: 2190 Dept.: GEOGRAPHY

From: Thomas L. Jacobson, Chair

Re: Use of Human Subjects in Research Shaping Identities: Puerto Ricans in Orlando, Florida

The application that you submitted to this office in regard to the use of human subjects in the proposal referenced above have been reviewed by the Secretary, the Chair, and two members of the Human Subjects Committee. Your project is determined to be Expedited per 45 CFR § 46.110(7) and has been approved by an expedited review process.

The Human Subjects Committee has not evaluated your proposal for scientific merit, except to weigh the risk to the human participants and the aspects of the proposal related to potential risk and benefit. This approval does not replace any departmental or other approvals, which may be required.

If you submitted a proposed consent form with your application, the approved stamped consent form is attached to this approval notice. Only the stamped version of the consent form may be used in recruiting research subjects.

If the project has not been completed by 6/25/2008 you must request a renewal of approval for continuation of the project. As a courtesy, a renewal notice will be sent to you prior to your expiration date; however, it is your responsibility as the Principal Investigator to timely request renewal of your approval from the Committee.

157 You are advised that any change in protocol for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Committee prior to implementation of the proposed change in the protocol. A protocol change/amendment form is required to be submitted for approval by the Committee. In addition, federal regulations require that the Principal Investigator promptly report, in writing any unanticipated problems or adverse events involving risks to research subjects or others.

By copy of this memorandum, the Chair of your department and/or your major professor is reminded that he/she is responsible for being informed concerning research projects involving human subjects in the department, and should review protocols as often as needed to insure that the project is being conducted in compliance with our institution and with DHHS regulations.

This institution has an Assurance on file with the Office for Human Research Protection. The Assurance Number is IRB00000446.

Cc: Jonathan Leib, Advisor HSC No. 2007.172

158

APPENDIX J

INFORMED CONSENT FORM

Dear ______.

I am a doctoral student under the direction of Professor Jonathan Leib in the Department of Geography, College of Social Sciences at Florida State University. I am conducting a research study to closely examine the processes of Puerto Rican identity construction in the Orlando metropolitan area in Florida. I want to know how the Orlando diaspora is been formed by both island-born and mainland-born Puerto Ricans and how the interaction between them in a new setting affects the process of making Puerto Ricanness.

Your participation will involve an interview that can take approximately an hour of your time. Your participation in this study is voluntary. If you choose not to participate or to withdraw from the study at any time, there will be no penalty of any kind. The results of the research study may be published but the information obtained during the course of the study will remain confidential, to the extent allowed by law. Therefore, your personal information is not going to be used, unless you would like and authorize otherwise.

There are no foreseeable risks or discomforts if you agree to participate in this study. Although there may be no direct benefit to you, the possible benefit of your participation is to get a better and clear knowledge of the Puerto Rican diaspora in Orlando and elsewhere in the U.S.

If you have any questions concerning the research study, please call me, or Dr. Leib, at 850-644- 1706 [email protected] / [email protected]

Sincerely, Luis Sánchez Ph.D. Candidate Department of Geography Florida State University

* * * * * * * I give my consent to participate in the above study.

______(signature) ______(date)

If you have any questions about your rights as a subject/participant in this research, or if you feel you have been placed at risk, you can contact the Chair of the Human Subjects Committee, Institutional Review Board, through the Vice President for the Office of Research at (850) 644- 8633.

159 Estimado ______,

Mi nombre es Luis Sánchez, soy estudiante doctoral bajo la supervisión del profesor Jonathan Leib en el Departamento de Geografía, Colegio de Ciencias Sociales de la Universidad del Estado de la Florida. Estoy llevando a cabo una investigación con motivo de examinar detalladamente los procesos de construcción de la identidad Puertorriqueña en el área metropolitana de Orlando, Florida. Mi objetivo es entender como la diaspora puertorriqueña en Orlando está siendo formada por Puertorriqueños nacidos tanto en la Isla como también nacidos en los Estados Unidos, como también entender como la interacción entre esos dos grupos en un nuevo ambiente afecta el cómo se construye la Puertorriqueñidad.

Por tal motivo estoy pidiendo su participación, la cual involucra un una entrevista que no tomará más de una hora de su tiempo. Esta entrevista es voluntaria. Si usted decide no participar o abandonar su participación en cualquier momento, no habrá penalidad de ningún tipo. Los resultados del estudio pudieran ser publicados, pero su nombre no será utilizado. El cuestionario es anónimo y la información obtenida durante el transcurso del estudio permanecerá confidencial, hasta la extensión permitida por ley. Por lo tanto, su información personal no será usada, a menos que usted quiera y autorice lo contrario.

No hay riesgos previsibles o molestias de algún tipo si usted decide participar en este estudio. Sin embargo, pudiera ser de que no haya beneficios directos para usted, el posible beneficio de su participación es el obtener información necesaria la cuál nos lleve a comprender claramente la diaspora Puertorriqueña en Orlando como también la existente en otras partes de los Estados Unidos.

Si usted tiene alguna pregunta con respecto a éste estudio de investigación, por favor comuníquese conmigo o con el Dr. Leib al 850-644-1706 [email protected] / [email protected]

Cordialmente,

Luis Sánchez Candidato a Ph.D. Departamento de Geografía Florida State University

* * * * * * * Consiento mi participacion en el estudio antes mencionado.

______(firma) ______(fecha)

Si usted tiene alguna pregunta sobre sus derechos como sujeto/participante en ésta investigación, o si usted que ha sido puesto en riesgo, usted puede comunicarse con el director del Human Subjects Committee, Institutional Review Board, a través del vicepresidente para la oficina de investigación al (850) 644-8633.

160

REFERENCES

Acosta, I. 1987. La Mordaza: Puerto Rico, 1948-1957. Río Piedras: Editorial de la UPR.

Acosta-Belén, E. and Santiago, C. 2006. Puerto Ricans in the United States: A Contemporary Portrait. Boulder, Col.: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Agnew, J. 2004. Nationalism. In J. Duncan, N. Johnson, and R. Schein (eds.) A Companion to Cultural Geography. Malden, MA : Blackwell. 223-237.

Agnew, V. 2005. Diaspora, Memory, and Identity: A Search of Home. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Agnew, V. 2005. Introduction. In V. Agnew (ed.) Diaspora, Memory, and Identity: A Search of Home. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 3-17.

Alba, R., Logan, J., Stults, B., Marzan, G., and Zhang, W. 1999. Immigrant Groups in the Suburbs: A Reexamination of Suburbanization and Spatial Assimilation. American Sociological Review. 64(3): 446-460.

Alba, R. and Nee, V. 1997. Rethinking Assimilation Theory for a New Era of Immigration. International Migration Review. 31: 826-874.

Alers-Montalvo, M. 1985. The Puerto Rican migrants of New York City: A Study of Anomie. New York: AMS Press.

Anderson, B. 1991. Imagined Communities. London/New York: Verso.

Anderson, K, and Gale, F. 1992. Inventing Places. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.

Anselmo, A. and Rubal-López, A. 2005. On Becoming Nuyoricans. New York: Peter Lang.

Anthias, F. 1998. Evaluating Diaspora: Beyond Ethnicity. Sociology. 32(3): 557-581.

Babbie, E. 2004. The Practice of Social Research. 10th edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson.

Barth, F. 1969. Introduction. In F. Barth (ed.) Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. 9-38

161 Basch, L., Schiller, N. and Szanton-Blanc, C. 1997. Nations Unbound: Transnational Projects, Postcolonial Predicaments, and Deterritorialized Nation-States. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach.

Benmayor, R. and Skotnes, A. 1994. Some Reflections on Migration and Identity. In R. Benmayor and A. Skotnes eds. A Migration and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1-18

Berger, J. 1972. Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin.

Berríos, R. 1977. Independence for Puerto Rico: The Only Solution. Foreign Affairs. 55: 561-583.

Berry, J. 1997. Immigration, acculturation and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review. 46: 5-8.

Berry, J. and Sam, D. 1997. Acculturation and Adaptation. In J. Berry, M. Seagull, and C. Kagitçibasi Handbook of Corss-cultural Psychology, Vol. 3. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. 291-326

Bhabha, H. 1994. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.

Bhabha, H. 1990. The Third Space. In J. Rutherford (ed.) Identity, Community, Culture, Difference. London: Lawrence & Wishart. 207-221

Bhatia, S. and Ram, A. 2001. Rethinking “Acculturation” in Relation to Diasporic Cultures and Postcolonial Identities. Human Development. 44: 1-18.

Bodnar, J. 1996. Generational Memory in an American Town. Journal of Interdisciplinary History. 26(4): 619-637.

Bodnar, J. 1989. Power and Memory in Oral History: Workers and Managers at Studebaker. The Journal of American History. 75(4): 1201-1221.

Bondi, L.1993. Locating Identity Politics. In M. Keith and S. Pile (eds.) Place and the Politics of Identity. London: Routledge. 84-101.

Brah, A. 1996. Cartographies of Diaspora: Contesting Identities. London: Routledge.

Brah, A. and Coombes, A. 2000. Hybridity and its Discontents: Politics, Science, Culture. New York: Routledge.

Brau, M. 1963. The Newcomers: Negroes and Puerto Ricans in a Changing Metropolis. The Journal of Negro Education. 32(1): 58-59.

162 Brettell, C. 2008. Theorizing Migration in Anthropology: The Social Construction of Networks, Identities, Communities, and Globalscapes. In C. Brettell and J. Hollifield (eds.) Migration Theory: Talking Across Disciplines. London: Routledge. 113-159.

Burke, P. 1980. The Self: Measurement Requirements from an Interactionist Perspective. Social Psychology Quarterly. 43: 18-29.

Burnett, C. 2001. Island Limbo: The Case of Puerto Rican Decolonization. Foreign Policy Research Institute. 43(3): 433-452.

Castells, M. 1997. The Power of Identity: The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture (Volume 2). USA: Blackwell.

Chaclar, A. 1997. Ethnolinguistic Identity and Spanish Proficiency in a Paradoxical Situation: The Case of Puerto Rican Return Migrants. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 18(2): 107-124.

Chaliand, G. and Rageau, J. 1995. The Penguin Atlas of Diasporas. New York: Penguin.

Christin, T, Hug, S., and Sciarini, P. 2002. Interests and Information in Referendum Voting: An Analysis of Swiss Voters. European Journal of Political Research. 41: 759-776.

Claudio, L. 1983. The Personal Support Systems of Puerto Rican Freshmen Students: Return Migrants and Non-Migrants. Ph.D. Dissertation. Syracuse University:

Clifford, J. 1994. Diasporas. In M. Guibernau and J. Rex (eds.) The Ethnicity Reader: Nationalism, Multiculturalism, and Migration. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Clifford, J. 1994. Diasporas. Cultural Anthropology. 9(3): 302-338.

Cohen, A. 1974. Two-Dimensional Man: An Essay on the Anthropology of Power and Symbolism in Complex Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Cohen, R. 1997. Global Diaspora: An Introduction. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Cornell, S. and Hartmann, D. 1998. Ethnicity and Race: Making Identities in a Changing World. USA: Pine Forge Prints.

Cosgrove, D. and Daniels, S. 1988. The Iconography of Landscape. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cruz, J. 1998. Identity and Power: Puerto Rican Politics and the Challenge of Ethnicity. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

163

Cunningham, J. 1953. Patronos americanos elogian braceros boricuas en Florida. El Mundo, July 22, pp. 1-14.

Dahlman, C. 2004. Diaspora. In J. Duncan, N. Johnson, and R. Schein, (eds.) A Companion to Cultural Geography. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. 485-498

Daniel, J. 2000. Migration and the Reconstruction of Identity: the Puerto Rican Example. In R. Hudson and F. Réno (eds.) Politics of Identity: Migrants and Minorities in Multicultural States. Great Britain: Macmillan Press. 3-24

Daniels, S. 1989. Marxism, Culture, and the Duplicity of Landscape. In R. Peet and N. Thrift (eds.) New Models in Geography, vol. 2. London: Unwin Hyman. 196-220

Davis, S. 1986. Parades and Power: Street Theatre in Nineteenth Century Philadelphia. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Delaney, D. 2005. Territory. USA: Blackwell.

Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. 1994. The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.1-25

Duany, J. 2002. Puerto Rican Nation on the Move: Identities on the Island and in the United States. USA: University of North Carolina Press.

Duany, J. and Matos-Rodríguez, F. 2006. Puerto Ricans in Orlando and Central Florida. New York: Centro de Estudios Puertorriqueños.

Duncan, J. 1990. The City as Text: The Politics of Landscape Interpretation in the Kandyan Kingdom. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Duncan, J. and Ley, D. 1993. Place/Culture/Representation. New York: Routledge.

Earnhardt, K. 1982. Development Planning and Population Policy in Puerto Rico: From Historical Evolution Towards A Plan fro Population Stabilization. Río Piedras, P.R.: Editorial de la UPR.

Faist, T. 2000. Transnationalization in International Migration: Implications for the Study of Citizenship and Culture. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 23: 189-222.

Falcón, A. 2004. Atlas of Stateside Puerto Ricans. Washington, DC: Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration.

Fitzpatrick, J. 1987. Puerto Rican Americans: The Meaning of Migration to the Mainland (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

164 Flores, J. 1993. Divided Borders: Essays on Puerto Rican Identity. Huston, TX: Arte Público Press.

Foglesong, R. 2001. Married to the Mouse: Walt Disney and Orlando. New Haven: Yale University Press.

García, A. 1996. Puerto Rico: Leyes Fundamentales. Río Piedras, PR.: Editorial Edil.

Georges, E. 1990. The Making of Transnational Community: Migration, Development, and Cultural Change in the Dominican Republic. New York: Columbia University Press.

Giles, H. and Johnson, P. 1987. Ethnolinguistic Identity Theory: A Social Psychological Approach to Language Maintenance. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 68: 69-99.

Giles, H. and Johnson, P. 1981. The Role of Language in Ethnic Group Formation. In J. Turner and H. Giles (eds.) Intergroup Behavior. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 199- 243.

Giles, H., Llado, N., McKirnan, D. and Taylor, D. 1979. Social Identity in Puerto Rico. International Journal of Psychology. 14: 185-201.

Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. 1999. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine.

Glazer, N. and Moynihan, P. 1970. Beyond the Melting Pot: The Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians, and Irish of New York City. 2nd ed. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Gold, J. 1980. An introduction to Behavioural Geography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

González, J. 1998. El País de los Cuatro Pisos. Río Piedras, PR: Ediciones Huracán.

Gregory, D. 1995. Imaginative Geographies. Progress in Human Geography 19: 447-485.

Gregory, D. 1978. Ideology, Science, and Human Geography. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Grimes, K. 1998. Crossing Borders: Changing Social Identities in Southern Mexico. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

165 Grosfoguel, R., Negrón-Muntaner, F., and Georas, C. 1997. Beyond Nationalist and Colonialist Discourses: The Jaiba Politics of the Puerto Rican Ethno-Nation. In R. Grosfoguel and F. Negrón-Muller (eds.) Puerto Rican Jam: Essays on Culture and Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 1-36.

Hall, S. 1992. The Question of Cultural Identity. In S. Hall, D. Held and A. McGrew (eds.) Modernity and its Futures. Cambridge: Polity Press. 273-316.

Hansen, J. and Liu, J. 1997. Social Identity and Language: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. TESOL Quarterly. 31(3): 567-576.

Häyrynen, M. 2000. The Kaleidoscopic View: The Finnish National Landscape Imagery. National Identities. 2: 5-19.

Hernández-Cruz, J. 1994. Migratory Trends in Contemporary Puerto Rico. In J. Hernández-Cruz (ed.) Migratory Trends in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico: Publication Center of the Interamerican University of Puerto Rico.

Hernández-Cruz, J. 1985. ¿Migración de Retorno o Circulación de Obreros Boricuas? Revista de Ciencias Sociales. Enero-Junio: 81-112.

Hernández, J. 1967. Return Migration to Puerto Rico. Berkeley: UC Press.

Hobsbawm, E. 1983. Introduction: Investigating Traditions. In E. Hobsbawm and T. Ranger (eds.) The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1-14.

Hoelscher, S. 2003. Making Place, Making Race: Performances of Whiteness in the Jim Crow South. Annals of the American Association of Geographers. 93: 657-686.

Hua, A. 2005. Diaspora and Cultural Memory. In V. Agnew (ed.) Diaspora, Memory, and Identity: A Search of Home. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 191-208.

Isaacs, H. 1975. Idols of the Tribe: Group Identity and Political Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Itzigsohn, J. et. al. 1999. Mapping Dominican Transnationals: Narrow and Broad Transnational Practices. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 22: 316-339.

Jackson, P. 1992. The Politics of the Streets: A Geography of Caribana. Political Geography. 11(2): 130-151.

Jackson, P. 1988. Street Life: The Politics of Carnival. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. 6: 213-227.

166 Jackson, P and Penrose, J. 1993. Introduction. In P. Jackson and J. Penrose (eds.) Constructions of Race, Place and Nation. London: UCL Press 1-23

Johnson, N. 2004. Public Memory. In J. Duncan, N. Johnson, and R. Schein, (eds.) A Companion to Cultural Geography. Oxford: Blackwell. 316-327.

Johnson, N. 1995. Cast in Stone: Monuments, Geography, and Nationalism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. 13:51-65.

Johnson, R. 1982. The New Yorican Comes Homes to Puerto Rico: Description and Consequences. In W. Stinner and R. Bryce-LaPorte (eds.) Returning Migration Remittances: Developing a Caribbean Perspective. Washington DC: Research Institute on Immigration and Ethnic Studies Smithsonian Institution. 129-154.

Johnston, R., Gregory, D., Pratt, G., and Watts, M. 2000. The Dictionary of Human Geography. NY: Blackwell.

Jones-Correa, M. 1998. Different Paths: Gender, Migration and Political Participation. International Migration Review. 32(2): 326-349.

Jones, M., Jones, R. and Woods, M. 2004. An Introduction to Political Geography: Space, Place and Politics. London: Routledge.

Kaplan, G. 1982. Of Teachers, Language, and Training: An Analysis of the Inservice Training Needs of Teachers of English and Teachers of Spanish to Return Migrants in Puerto Rico. Unpublished Manuscript distributed during the Second Annual Conference of the Puerto Rican Studies Association. San Juan, PR.

Kaya, I. 2003. Shifting Turkish American Identity Formations in the United States. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Geography, Florida State University.

Kearney, M. 1991. Borders and Boundaries of State and Self at the End of Empire. Journal of Historical Sociology. 4: 54-74.

Keith, M. and Pile, S.1993. The Place of Politics. In M. Keith, and S. Pile (eds.) Place and the Politics of Identity. London: Routledge. 22-40.

Kernstock, E. 1980. How New Migrants Behave Politically: The Puerto Rican in Hartford, 1970. New York: Arno Press.

Kitchin, R. and Tate, N. 2000. Conducting Research into Human Geography: Theory, Methodology, and Practice. Essex-England: Pearson Education Limited.

Kong, L. and Yeoh, B. 1997. The Construction of National Identity Through the Production of Ritual and Spectacle: An Analysis of National Day Parades in Singapore. Political Geography. 16(3): 213-239.

167 Kraidy, M. 2005. Hybridity: or the Cultural Logic of Globalization. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Kurlansky, M. 1992. A Continent of Islands. Massachusetts: Addison- Wesley Publishing Co.

Landale, N., Oropesa, S., and Gorman, B. 2000. Migration and Infant Death: Assimilation or Selective Migration among Puerto Ricans? American Sociological Review. 65(6): 888-909.

LeDuc, L. 2002. Opinion Change and Voting Behaviour in Referendums. European Journal of Political Research. 41: 711-732.

Leib, J. 2002. Separate Times, Shared Spaces: Arthur Ashe, Monument Avenue and the Politics of Richmond, Virginia’s Symbolic Landscape. Cultural Geographies. 9: 286-312.

Levitt, P. 2001. Transnational Villagers. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Levitt, P. 1998. Social Remittances: Migration Driven Local-Level Forms of Cultural Diffusion. International Migration Review. 32: 926-948.

Levitt, P. and Glick, N. 2004. Conceptualizing Simultaneity: A Transnational Social Field Perspective of Society. International Migration Review. 38: 1003-1039.

Lewis, P., Lowenthal, D., and Tuan, Y. 1973. Visual Blight in America. Washington: Association of American Geographers, Commission on College Geography.

Limb, M. and Dwyer, C. 2001. Qualitative Methodologies for Geographers: Issues and Debates. London, New York: Arnold; Co-published in the U.S.A. by Oxford University.

Logan, J. and Alba, R. 1993. Locational Returns to Human Capital: Minority Acces to Sub-urban Community Resources. Demography. 30: 243-268.

López, R. 1968. “Puertorriqueños ‘Invaden’ Florida: Muchos Adquieren Terrenos Allí.” El Mundo, June 2, p. 20.

Lorenzo-Hernámdez, J. 1999. The Nuyorican’s Dilemma: Categorization of Returning Migrants in Puerto Rico. International Migration Review. 33(4): 988-1013.

Maldonado-Denis, M. 1980. The Emigration Dialectic: Puerto Rico and the U.S.A.. New York: International Publishers.

Márquez, C. 2004. Adios, Puerto Rico; Hola, United States. Caribbean Business. September 16.

168 Marston, S. 1988. Neighborhood and Politics: Irish Ethnicity in Nineteenth Century Lowell, Massachusetts. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 78(3): 414-432.

Martin, J. 2005. Identity. In D. Sibley, N. Washbourne, D. Atkinson, and P. Jackson (eds.) Cultural Geography: A Critical Dictionary of Key Ideas. London/New York: I. B. Tauris & Company

Massey, D. 1995. The Conceptualization of Place. In D. Massey and P. Jess (eds.) A Place in the World: Places, Cultures, and Globalization. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Massey, D. and Denton, N. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University Press.

McEwan, C. 2004. Transnationalism. In J. Duncan, N. Johnson, and R. Schein (eds.) A Companion to Cultural Geography. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 499-512.

Mills, C. 1993. Myths and Meanings of Gentrification. In J. Duncan and D. Ley (eds.) Place/Culture/Representation. London: Routledge.

Mintz, S. 1955. Puerto Rican Emigration: A Three-Fold Comparison. Social and Economic Forces. 1

Mitchell, D. 2000. Cultural Geography: A Critical Introduction. USA: Blackwell.

Mitchell, D. 1994. Landscape and Surplus Value: The Making of the Ordinary in Brentwood, California. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space.12: 7-30.

Mitchell, D. 1993. The Life of the Land: Migrant Workers and the California Landscape. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Mitchell, K. 1993. Multiculturalism, or the United Colors of Capitalism? Antipode. 25: 263-294.

Mordue, T. 1999. Heartbeat Country: Conflicting Values, Coinciding Visions. Environment and Planning D – Society and Space. 31:629-646.

Novak, R. 1956. Distribution of Puerto Ricans on Manhattan Island. Geographical Review. 46(2): 182-186.

O’Brian, P. 1990. Master and Commander. New York: W. W. Norton.

Olwig, K. 2004. Place, Movement and Identity. In W. Kokot, K. Tölöyan and C. Alfonso (eds.) Diaspora, Identity and Religion: New Directions in Theory and Research. London: Routledge. 53-71.

169 Ortíz, V. 1986. Changes in the Characteristics of Puerto Rican Migrants from 1955 to 1980. International Migration Review. 20(3): 612-628.

Padilla, F. 1987. Puerto Rican Chicago. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.

Papastergiadis, N. 2000. The Turbulence of Migration: Globalization, Deterritorialization and Hybridity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Patton M. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. California: Sage. Peet, R. 1996. A Sign Taken for History: Daniels Shays’ Memorial in Petersham, Massachusetts. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 86: 21-43.

Peet, R. 1998. Modern Geographical Thought. Oxford: Blackwell.

Pérez, G. 2005. A Gendered Tale of Puerto Rican Return: Place, Nation and Identity. In R. Potter, D. Conway and J. Phillips (eds.). The Experience of Return Migration: Caribbean Perspectives. UK: Ashgate. 183-206.

Pérez, M. 2000. Puerto Ricans in the United States. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.

Pile, S. and Thrift, N. 1995. Mapping the Subject: Geographies of Cultural Transformation. London: Routledge.

Pomery, E. 1944. The American Colonial Office. Mississippi Valley Historical Review. 30(4): 521-532

Portes, A. 2003. Theoretical Convergencies and Empirical Evidence in the Study of Immigrant Transnationalism. International Migration Review. 37: 874-892.

Prabhu, A. 2007. Hybridity: Limits, Transformations, Prospects. New York: State University of New York Press.

Pratt, J. 1950. America's colonial experiment; how the United States gained, governed, and in part gave away a colonial empire. New York: Prentice-Hall.

Pries, L. 2001. The Approach of Transnational Social Spaces: Responding to New Configurations of the Social and the Spatial. In L. Pries (ed) New Transnational Social Spaces: International Migration and Transnational Companies in the Early Twenty-First Century. London: Routlegde. 3-33.

Ramos, V. 2006. The New Orlando: Between 2 worlds, Puerto Ricans Remember Roots as They Sink New Ones. The Orlando Sentinel. February 5, 2006.

Reddy, M. 1993. Statistical Records of Hispanic-Americans. Detroit: Gale Research Inc.

170 Riessman, C. 1994. Qualitative Studies in Social Work Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J. 2003. Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. London; Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Rivera-Batiz, F. 1989. The Characteristics of Recent Puerto Rican Migrants: Some Further Evidence. Migration World.

Rivera-Batiz, F. and Santiago, C. 1996. Island Paradox: Puerto Rico in the 1990s. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Robinson, G. 1998. Methods and Techniques in Human Geography. West Sussex England: John Wiley & Sons.

Rodríguez, C. 1989. Puerto Ricans: Born in the U.S.A.. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Rosario, C. 1983. Éxodo Puertorriqueño: Las Emigraciones al Caribe y Hawaii, 1900- 1915. San Juan, P.R.: Ramallo Brothers Printing.

Rouse, R. 1991. Mexican Migration and the Social Space of Postmodernism. Diaspora. 1(1): 1-23.

Sackmann, R., Peters, B., and Faist, T. 2003. Identity and Integration: Migrants in Western Europe. England: Ashgate.

Safran, W. 2004. Deconstructing and Comparing Diasporas. In W. Kokot, K. Tölöyan and C. Alfonso (eds.) Diaspora, Identity and Religion: New Directions in Theory and Research. London: Routledge. 9-29.

Safran, W. 1991. Diaspora in Modern Society: Myths of Homeland and Return. Diaspora. 1(1): 83-99.

Said, E. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Press.

Sánchez, J. 2007. Boricua Power: A Political History of Puerto Ricans in the United States. New York: New York University Press.

Schein, R. 2003. Normative Dimensions of Landscape. In C. Wilson and P. Groth, (eds.) Everyday America: Cultural Landscape Studies after J.B. Jackson. Berkeley: University of California Press. 199-218.

Schein, R. 1997. The Place of Landscape: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting an American Scene. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 87(4):660- 680.

171 Schein, R. 1993. Representing Urban America: 19th-Century Views of Landscape, Space, and Power. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. 11: 7-2 1.

Schmitter, B. 2008. The Sociology of Immigration: From Assimilation to Segmented Assimilation, from the American Experience to the Global Arena. In C. Brettell and J. Hollifield (eds.) Migration Theory: Talking Across Disciplines. London: Routledge. 83-111.

Seidl, T., Shenk, J., and DeWind, A. 1980. “The San Juan Shuttle: Puerto Ricans on Contract.” In López, A. (ed.) The Puerto Ricans: Their History, Culture, and Society, Rochester, VT: Schenkman Books. 417-32.

Seidman, I. 1998. Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Silva, N. 2002. The Hybrid Island: Culture Crossings and the Invention of Identity in Sri Lanka. London: Zed Books.

Smith, R. 1993. Los Ausentes Siempre Presentes: The Imagining, Making and Politics of a Transnational Community Between New York City and Ticuani, Puebla. Papers on Latin American and Iberian Studies. New York: Columbia University.

Smith, S. 1984. Practicing Human Geography. Annals of the Association of American Geographer. 74(3):353-374.

Soja, E. 1996. Third Space: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Soja, E. and Hooper, B. 1993. The Spaces That Difference Makes: Some Notes on the Geographical Margins of New Cultural Politics. In M. Keith and S. Pile (eds.) Place and the Politics of Identity. London: Routledge. 183-205.

South, S., Crowder, K., and Chavez, E. 2005. Migration and Spatial Assimilation Among U.S. Latinos: Classical Versus Segmented Trajectories. Demography. 43(3): 497- 521.

Stewart, C. 1999. Syncretism and its Synonyms: Reflections on Cultural Mixture. Diacritics. 29(3): 40-62.

Sutton, C. 1987. The Caribbeanization of New York City and the Emergence of a Transnational Sociocultural System. In C. Sutton and E. Chaney (eds.) Caribbean Life in New York City: Sociocultural Dimensions. New York: Center for Migration Studies. 15-30.

Tajfel, H. 1974. Social Identity and Intergroup Behavior. Social Science Information. 13: 65-99.

172 Thoits, P. 1991. On Merging Identities Theory and Stress Research. Social Psychology Quarterly. 54: 101-112.

Till, K. 2003. Places of Memory. In J. Agnew, K. Mitchell, and G. Toal, (eds.) A Companion to Political Geography. Malden, MA and Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.

Tölöyan, K. 1996. Rethinking Diaspora(s): Stateless Power in the Transnational Moment. Diaspora. 5: 3-35.

Torres, C., Rodríguez, V., and Burgos, W. (eds.). 1994. The Commuter Nation: Perspectives on Puerto Rican Migration (1st ed.). Río Piedras, P.R.: Editorial de la Universidad de Puerto Rico.

Trías, J. 1999. Puerto Rico: Las Penas de la Colonia Más Antigüa del Mundo. Río Piedras, P.R.: Editorial de la Universidad de Puerto Rico

Valentine, G. 1997. Tell me about…: Using Iinterviews as a Research Methodology. In R. Flowerdew and D. Martin (eds.) Methods in Human Geography: A guide for Students Doing a Research Project. London: Prentice Hall. 110-126

Velázquez, J. 1998. The Puerto Rican Movement: Voices from the Diaspora. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Vertovec, S. 1999. Conceiving and Researching Transnationalism. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 22: 447-462.

Waters, M. 1990. Ethnic Options: Crossing Identities in America. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Whalen, C. 2005. Colonialism, Citizenship, and the Making of the Puerto Rican Diaspora: An Introduction. In C. Whalen and V. Vazquez-Hernandez (eds.) The Puerto Rican Diaspora: Historical Perspectives. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 1-42

Wilson, M. 1954. Nyakyusa Ritual and Symbolism. American Anthropologist. 56(2): 228-241.

Woods, M. 1999. Performing Power: Local Politics and the Taunton Pageant of 1928. Journal of Historical Geography. 25: 57-74.

Woolard, K. and Schieffelin, B. 1994. Language Ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology. 23: 55-82.

173 Zentella, A. 1990. Return Migration, Language and Identity: Puerto Rican Bilinguals in Dos Worlds/Two Mundos. International Journal of Social Language. 84: 81-100.

Zukin, S. 1991. Landscapes of Power: From Detroit to Disney World. Berkeley: University of California Press.

174

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Luis Sánchez was born on April 14, 1979, in Puerto Rico. In 2001 he graduated with honors (Magna Cum Laude) from the Universidad de Puerto Rico, Recinto de Río Piedras with a Bachelor of Arts (BA) in Geography and Labor Relations. That same year he began graduate school at the Urban Planning Graduate School of the Universidad de Puerto Rico. After a semester in Urban Planning, Luis decided to move to the U.S. to continue his academic career. In 2002 he began his Master of Arts (MA) in Geography and finished it in 2004 at The University of Akron, Ohio. Soon after, Luis began his Ph.D. in Geography at Florida State University. Luis’ research interests revolved around political and cultural issues in Latin America, related to the geographies of identity formation, nationalism, transnationalism, hybridity, the politics of self-determination and decolonization, migration and diasporas.

175