Penn State Study From 2021: How West Indians Practiced Housing Discrimination Against Black Americans To Rise In New York City

[HimmyHendrix]

Cliffs: Cash-Rich West Indians use sponsors from home, migrant loans, and “covering” (white passing in ethnic form) to overpay white property owners for real estate in NYC then denied housing opportunities to people who weren’t from their ethnic groups for most of the 20th century.​

This is already known to most real New Yorkers. How areas that were once occupied by Black Americans became West Indian over time. A form of ethnic cleansing.

​

Link For The Full Study​

​

Excerpt from the study.

A Theory of How Early West Indian Migrants Broke Racial Cartels in Housing​

​

Eleanor Marie Brown​

The Pennsylvania State University
Date Written: April 23, 2021

Abstract​

Why are the black brownstone owners in Harlem and Brooklyn disproportionately West Indian? The landlords, West Indian-American? The tenants African-American? These are tough questions. For students of housing discrimination, West Indian Americans have long presented a quandary. If it is reasonable to assume that racial exclusions are being consistently applied to persons who are dark-skinned, one would expect to find that housing discrimination has had similar effects on West Indian-Americans and African-Americans. Yet this is not the case: West Indian-Americans generally own and rent higher quality housing than African-Americans.

Moreover, these advantages began long ago. For example, when racial covenants, that is, restrictions barring racial and ethnic groups from owning real property in particular neighborhoods were rife in New York, they were not consistently applied against West Indians, who were sometimes able to buy into tony neighborhoods. While it is true that such covenants were also inconsistently applied against other ethnic and religious groups such as Jewish New Yorkers, West-Indians still stand out. Since West Indians are overwhelmingly dark-skinned persons of African descent, they typically did not have the option of “passing” that may have been available to other groups.

Eschewing more traditional explanations in the civil rights literature, I apply the literature in which racial segregation in real property ownership is conceived as a racial monopoly in which racial cartels appropriate anti-competitive techniques to monopolize access to real property. Maintaining a racial cartel is dependent on white owners maintaining a united front, that is, they must uniformly refuse to sell. Importantly, realtors play a gatekeeping role in real estate and West Indians dominated the realtor sector. As realtors, they were expert at finding defectors, namely, whites willing to break norms of racial exclusivity, in exchange for their ability to extract a premium for selling to blacks early. Brokers then proceeded to buy significant numbers of titles, which were then off-loaded to fellow West Indians. West Indian brokers could act in confidence because they had cash-rich clients and were often buying in trust (de-facto if not de-jure) for fellow West Indians.

In so doing, West Indian brokers in New York were simply replicating techniques that had been utilized by their land-brokering ancestors. I discuss the history that “previews” this period in New York, albeit in a different context: in the British West Indian islands from which the migrants originated. There are repeated instances of blacks "busting" white monopolies in land-ownership, throughout the West Indian colonies in contravention of racial norms in the British colonies of who was allowed to own land where. Upon arrival in New York, West Indians encountered another racial monopoly in real property ownership, namely Northern racial segregation. They essentially appropriated the same techniques that they had utilized in the West Indies

 

[HimmyHendrix]

@kingofnyc @tuckgod @HarlemHottie @K.O.N.Y

 

[tuckgod]

 

[HimmyHendrix]

They were delineating 100 years ago

 

[tuckgod]

They were delineating 100 years ago

They weren’t delineating, we have never been unified, and they came here with no other intention but to step over us.

They came with that unity shyt after they had decimated our communities with heroin, cocaine, weed and guns while establishing their own foothold in legitimate American society at our expense, then the unity/black uhuru shyt came in the late 70s/80s.

They played our elders like a fiddle but we correcting things now.

 

[Blessings]

"Cash-Rich West Indians use sponsors from home, migrant loans, and “covering” (white passing in ethnic form) to overpay white property owners for real estate in NYC then denied housing opportunities to people who weren’t from their ethnic groups for most of the 20th century. This is already known to most real New Yorkers. How areas that were once occupied by Black Americans became West Indian over time. A form of ethnic cleansing."

That claim dramatically misrepresents both the substance and tone of Eleanor Marie Lawrence Brown’s paper and distorts the complex historical dynamics of housing, race, and ethnicity in New York City. Let’s unpack this.

---

What the Claim Gets Wrong or Oversimplifies:​

1. “Overpaying white property owners”​

Partial truth, distorted intent:
Yes, West Indian realtors and buyers sometimes paid a premium to persuade white sellers to violate racial covenants or community norms. But this is not framed as exploitation — rather, Brown interprets it as market entry under duress in a racially restricted system. The term used is “finding defectors” in a racial cartel, not overpaying as part of a scheme.

2. “Covering (white passing in ethnic form)”​

Incorrect:
Brown explicitly rejects the idea that West Indians were “passing” as white. Most were phenotypically Black and visibly so. The idea of “covering” (from Kenji Yoshino) refers to how people may downplay culturally stigmatized aspects (like accent, or identifying too strongly with African American culture) — not pretending to be white.

3. “Denying housing opportunities to others”​

Misleading:
Brown never argues that West Indians intentionally excluded African Americans. In fact, she points out how racial segregation and white gatekeeping defined access to real estate, not intra-Black ethnic exclusion. West Indian realtors helped other West Indians — often due to trust and informal credit systems — but this is not the same as “ethnic cleansing.”

4. “Ethnic cleansing”​

Highly inflammatory and inappropriate:
Using the term “ethnic cleansing” to describe demographic changes within Black communities is deeply irresponsible and grossly exaggerates what happened. There is no evidence that West Indians forcibly displaced African Americans. The shifts in neighborhood composition reflect migration patterns, economic factors, and racial capitalism, not orchestrated exclusion or violence.

---

What Brown Actually Argues:​

• West Indians had historical experience, cultural norms, and informal institutions (e.g., pooled resources, trust networks) that allowed them to break into the racially restricted housing market in ways African Americans were often barred from.
• They acted as a kind of "shock absorber" in racially exclusive neighborhoods — often targeted for racial hostility themselves.
• The real enemy was the white-dominated housing cartel, not other Black ethnic groups.

---

Better Framing:​

Instead of painting this history as betrayal or exclusion, a more accurate takeaway from Brown’s work is:

“West Indian migrants developed and leveraged communal strategies to penetrate racially exclusive housing markets. While this gave them certain advantages, it occurred within — not outside — a system of white supremacy, and does not justify blaming them for broader patterns of racial inequality in housing.”

 

[Blessings]

"West Indians Practiced Housing Discrimination Against Black Americans To Rise In New York City"

No, Eleanor Marie Lawrence Brown does not state or imply that “West Indians practiced housing discrimination against Black Americans to rise in New York City.”

What Brown Actually Argues:​

Brown's paper centers on how West Indian migrants managed to circumvent white-dominated racial housing cartels in early 20th-century New York. Her key claims are:

• West Indians were often able to acquire property in white neighborhoods through informal credit networks, pooled resources, and their role as real estate brokers.
• They had cash liquidity, communal trust, and a historical background in land brokerage from the British West Indies that gave them an edge.
• West Indian realtors acted as gatekeepers for their own ethnic community, but this behavior was rooted in network trust and resource pooling, not in discriminatory intent against African Americans.
• Brown draws analogies to practices like blockbusting, but in the context of breaking racial monopolies — not excluding other Black people.

What Brown Does NOT Claim:​

• She does not say that West Indians discriminated against African Americans in housing.
• She does not imply that West Indian success came at the expense of African Americans through active exclusion.
• She makes no accusations of intra-Black housing discrimination as a cause of demographic shifts.

In fact, she goes out of her way to situate both groups as victims of white racial exclusion — West Indians simply had some tools (trust networks, property purchasing norms, early capital) that allowed them to penetrate those barriers more successfully in some cases.

---

On the idea of “Ethnic Cleansing” or Intentional Exclusion:​

Brown never uses — or even comes close to — inflammatory or accusatory language like “ethnic cleansing.” She acknowledges that West Indian realtors sold mostly to West Indians, but this is not framed as discriminatory, rather as a reflection of community cohesion and survival strategy in a hostile housing market.

---

Bottom Line:​

Brown’s thesis is about structural access, not inter-group exclusion.
She does not claim that West Indians rose by suppressing African Americans — only that they navigated racial housing discrimination differently and, in some cases, more successfully.

 

[Blessings]

"West Indians Practiced Housing Discrimination Against Black Americans To Rise In New York City"

Here are three precisely cited passages from Eleanor Marie Lawrence Brown’s paper that you can use to directly counter the false claim that she said or implied that “West Indians practiced housing discrimination against Black Americans to rise in New York City.”

---

1. On West Indian Brokers Supporting Their Own — Not Excluding Others​

“West Indian brokers could act in confidence because they had cash-rich clients and were often buying in trust (de-facto if not de-jure) for fellow West Indians.”
— Page 2

Context: This behavior was based on communal trust and financial pooling, not exclusion of African Americans.

---

2. On the Absence of “Passing” and the Role of Performativity​

“Typically, these West Indians were not 'passing.' Notably, many of these West Indians (even affluent ones) had no 'opt-out' option. Most West Indians were clearly phenotypically black and as such were clearly 'outsiders.'”
— Page 10

Context: Brown emphasizes that West Indians were not escaping discrimination via “white-passing” but instead had to work their identity within an exclusionary system.

---

3. On Structural Cartels — The Real Source of Housing Discrimination​

“Appropriating Cooter’s terminology, Roithmayr argues that a segregated residential community is a classic example of a racial monopoly… organizations played a critical role in policing racial covenants... to exclude blacks.”
— Pages 14–15

Context: The exclusion in housing markets was enforced by white real estate cartels and neighborhood associations, not by West Indian migrants.

---

Suggested Response (if you're replying online or in conversation):​

The claim that Brown said West Indians discriminated against African Americans to rise in NYC is false. Her paper explains that white-controlled housing cartels excluded Black people broadly, and West Indian brokers navigated those barriers using communal capital and trust-based networks — not by excluding African Americans. She explicitly states West Indians were phenotypically Black, not “passing,” and faced the same exclusionary structures. The focus is on how some broke through those systems — not on harming others.

 

[HimmyHendrix]

Brown explicitly rejects the idea that West Indians were “passing” as white. Most were phenotypically Black and visibly so. The idea of “covering” (from Kenji Yoshino) refers to how people may downplay culturally stigmatized aspects (like accent, or identifying too strongly with African American culture) — not pretending to be white.

i never said they were pretending to be white.

using AI instead of reading won’t work here.

prioritizing other west indians in a housing crisis and not all black people is the very definition of ethnic cleansing

if mexicans move into a neighborhood and give out property solely to other mexicans, at the expense of the original inhabitants and over time that practice results in an area becoming 95-100% mexican, that is ethnic cleansing

 

[HimmyHendrix]

Brown never uses — or even comes close to — inflammatory or accusatory language like “ethnic cleansing.” She acknowledges that West Indian realtors sold mostly to West Indians, but this is not framed as discriminatory, rather as a reflection of community cohesion and survival strategy in a hostile housing market.

Your AI reading something so obvious as this obviously shows it’s biased.

If you control the housing market on every level, and exclude other groups the boost your own, i don’t care if you call in “community cohesion” or “survival”

for every black american that was denied housing due to prioritizing west indians that’s another unhoused black american

the study also states that white owners WOULD NOT sell to Black Americans due to racism.

 

[Blessings]

i never said they were pretending to be white.

using AI instead of reading won’t work here.

prioritizing other west indians in a housing crisis and not all black people is the very definition of ethnic cleansing

if mexicans move into a neighborhood and give out property solely to other mexicans, at the expense of the original inhabitants and over time that practice results in an area becoming 95-100% mexican, that is ethnic cleansing

The claim that West Indians prioritizing their own during a housing crisis is “ethnic cleansing” is both historically false and irresponsible. Ethnic cleansing implies violence and forced displacement — which never occurred. West Indians made up only ~10% of NYC’s Black population and bought homes in white neighborhoods others were barred from. They leveraged trust networks to secure housing in a racist system — not to harm African Americans. This isn’t exclusion — it’s survival and access within white-dominated housing cartels. Comparing this to ethnic cleansing grossly distorts both history and terminology.


Here's a clear, data-driven and historically grounded rebuttal to the claim that West Indians “prioritizing other West Indians in a housing crisis” amounts to ethnic cleansing — a claim that is both factually incorrect and deeply inflammatory.

---

1. The Definition of Ethnic Cleansing vs. Historical Reality​

Ethnic cleansing is defined by the UN and scholars as:

“The purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.”

There is no historical evidence that:

• West Indians used violence, coercion, or terror
• Or that they targeted African Americans for displacement

Instead, Brown shows they:

• Facilitated Black entry into previously white-only neighborhoods
• Did so through communal trust, informal credit, and pooled resources

---

2. Statistical Reality: West Indians Were a Minority of a Minority​

In 1930:​

• NYC Black population: ~328,000
• Foreign-born Black population: ~50,000
• West Indians in NYC: ~30,000–35,000
  → ≈ 10% of NYC’s Black population

(Source: U.S. Census data + historical estimates from Winston James and Watkins-Owens)


African Americans (U.S.-born) made up 90%+ of the city’s Black population at the time.


It is numerically implausible for West Indians to have displaced African Americans en masse — they were too few in number.

---

3. Harlem: The Neighborhood in Question​

• Harlem was 10% Black in 1910, and became 70% Black by 1930, then 98% Black by 1950
• This rise was driven by the combined influx of African Americans and West Indians
• Some blocks (like W. 144th Street) were ~40–45% West Indian — not 100%, and not exclusionary

(Source: Digital Harlem Project; NYC census records)


West Indian brokers often sold to co-ethnics because of trust and shared lending systems, not to exclude African Americans. There is no evidence of African Americans being turned away or displaced by force or policy.

---

4. Structural Forces Were the True Cause of Segregation​

According to Brown (and others like Massey & Denton):

• The real exclusionary force was white housing cartels, not West Indian migrants
• West Indians broke into white neighborhoods, not Black ones
• They helped expand Black access to housing beyond ghettoized zones

So the analogy to Mexicans "taking over" a Black neighborhood is factually backwards — West Indians were entering white-dominated spaces and then building enclaves of Black life.

 

[HimmyHendrix]

The claim that West Indians prioritizing their own during a housing crisis is “ethnic cleansing” is both historically false and irresponsible. Ethnic cleansing implies violence and forced displacement — which never occurred. West Indians made up only ~10% of NYC’s Black population and bought homes in white neighborhoods others were barred from. They leveraged trust networks to secure housing in a racist system — not to harm African Americans. This isn’t exclusion — it’s survival and access within white-dominated housing cartels. Comparing this to ethnic cleansing grossly distorts both history and terminology.


Here's a clear, data-driven and historically grounded rebuttal to the claim that West Indians “prioritizing other West Indians in a housing crisis” amounts to ethnic cleansing — a claim that is both factually incorrect and deeply inflammatory.

---

1. The Definition of Ethnic Cleansing vs. Historical Reality​

Ethnic cleansing is defined by the UN and scholars as:




There is no historical evidence that:

• West Indians used violence, coercion, or terror
• Or that they targeted African Americans for displacement

Instead, Brown shows they:

• Facilitated Black entry into previously white-only neighborhoods
• Did so through communal trust, informal credit, and pooled resources

---

2. Statistical Reality: West Indians Were a Minority of a Minority​

In 1930:​

• NYC Black population: ~328,000
• Foreign-born Black population: ~50,000
• West Indians in NYC: ~30,000–35,000
  → ≈ 10% of NYC’s Black population

(Source: U.S. Census data + historical estimates from Winston James and Watkins-Owens)


African Americans (U.S.-born) made up 90%+ of the city’s Black population at the time.


It is numerically implausible for West Indians to have displaced African Americans en masse — they were too few in number.

---

3. Harlem: The Neighborhood in Question​

• Harlem was 10% Black in 1910, and became 70% Black by 1930, then 98% Black by 1950
• This rise was driven by the combined influx of African Americans and West Indians
• Some blocks (like W. 144th Street) were ~40–45% West Indian — not 100%, and not exclusionary

(Source: Digital Harlem Project; NYC census records)


West Indian brokers often sold to co-ethnics because of trust and shared lending systems, not to exclude African Americans. There is no evidence of African Americans being turned away or displaced by force or policy.

---

4. Structural Forces Were the True Cause of Segregation​

According to Brown (and others like Massey & Denton):

• The real exclusionary force was white housing cartels, not West Indian migrants
• West Indians broke into white neighborhoods, not Black ones
• They helped expand Black access to housing beyond ghettoized zones

So the analogy to Mexicans "taking over" a Black neighborhood is factually backwards — West Indians were entering white-dominated spaces and then building enclaves of Black life.

your using AI to prove you wrong

 

[Blessings]

Here's a breakdown of the racial and ethnic composition of Harlem and Brooklyn from 1900–1950, including white, Black, Jewish, Irish, Italian, and other groups, based on historical records, census data, and migration studies:

Harlem (Upper Manhattan)​

Pre-1910s: Predominantly White​

• White ethnic groups dominated, especially:
  • German and Irish immigrants in East Harlem
  • Italian immigrants in parts of West Harlem
  • Jewish communities (especially Eastern European Jews) in Central Harlem
• Black population in 1900: ~10%

1910–1930: Racial Turnover​

• Driven by:
  • Great Migration of African Americans from the South
  • West Indian immigration (Jamaica, Barbados, etc.)
  • White flight, prompted by perceived loss of property value and racial prejudice
• 1920:
  • Black: ~32%
  • Whites: ~60% (including many Jewish and Italian residents)
• 1930:
  • Black: ~70%
  • Jewish: ~20%
  • Italian and Irish: shrinking presence

By 1950:​

• Black: ~98% in Central Harlem
• White populations (Jewish, Irish, Italian): largely gone
• Harlem had become the "Capital of Black America"

Brooklyn (e.g., Bedford-Stuyvesant, Crown Heights)​

1900–1920: Heavily White, Ethnically Diverse​

• Jewish, Italian, Irish, and German immigrants dominated
• Black population <2% in 1900

1930s–1950s: Growing Black and Caribbean Presence​

• Major groups:
  • Jewish Americans (especially in Crown Heights and Brownsville)
  • Italian and Irish working-class communities
  • West Indian migrants, particularly in Bedford-Stuyvesant
• 1950: Black population in Brooklyn ~7.6%
  • Bedford-Stuyvesant: majority Black
  • Crown Heights: Mixed — Black, Jewish, West Indian, some white

Determining the exact proportion of West Indian individuals within the Black populations of Harlem and Brooklyn during the early to mid-20th century is challenging due to the limitations of historical census data. However, available estimates provide some insight:

Harlem​

• 1920: Approximately 25% of New York City's Black population were Caribbean immigrants, with a significant concentration in Harlem. Wikipedia
• 1930: The foreign-born Black population in the U.S. was about 0.8%, with nearly half residing in Harlem. yellowpigs.net
• Specific Blocks: On certain blocks, such as West 144th Street, West Indian households comprised up to 46% of residents in the 1920s. drstephenrobertson.com

Brooklyn​

• 1930s–1940s: Neighborhoods like Bedford-Stuyvesant saw a growing West Indian presence, though exact percentages are not specified.
• 1950: The overall Black population in Brooklyn was approximately 7.6%, with a notable West Indian community, especially in areas like Crown Heights and Flatbush. Wikipedia

Summary​

While precise figures are elusive, it's evident that West Indian immigrants constituted a significant portion of the Black populations in both Harlem and Brooklyn during this period, particularly in specific neighborhoods and blocks.

 

[Blessings]

your using AI to prove you wrong

I read the entire study you posted. It's crazy how 95% of the BS you wrote wasn't mentioned in the study. You could've just posted your thoughts without mentioning the study.

Using the study to validate your views...ain't it

 

[HimmyHendrix]

I read the entire study you posted. It's crazy how 95% of the BS you wrote wasn't mentioned in the study. You could've just posted your thoughts without mentioning the study.

you didn’t read the study. it wasn’t up
long enough. i read it thoroughly.

you filtered it through shytty AI to form opinions you yourself couldn’t articulate.

the actual study combined with my own anecdotal experiences supports my claim

areas don’t become 95-100% caribbean without cleansing

violence, terror and horror can be interpreted in many ways

you’re arguing that gentrification itself isn’t a form a ethnic cleansing which it is

due to power imbalances, loss of culturla
identity, displacement, and systemic inequity

all things that happened to black americans at the hands of west indians