Who Can Call Themselves a ‘New Yorker’?
Sandego.net – When Jennifer Lopez, the internationally renowned entertainer based in Los Angeles, recently shared her perspective on what it means to be a New Yorker during an appearance on the internet talk show “Subway Takes,” she sparked a renewed conversation about the city’s evolving identity. The discussion, which took place on a New York City subway car, centered on whether residency alone could define someone as a native of the metropolis. Lopez, whose career is deeply rooted in the Bronx and its cultural legacy, asserted that being born in New York was essential to claiming the title. “You have to be born in New York to be a New Yorker,” she declared, emphasizing the significance of origin in shaping one’s connection to the city.
A Question of Birth and Belonging
Kareem Rahma, the show’s host, challenged Lopez’s stance by pointing out that he himself had lived in the city for 14 years and paid its taxes. “If someone stays here for 50 years, can they not call themselves a New Yorker?” he asked. Lopez’s response was firm, but not without nuance. “You live in New York. You take on characteristics of New Yorkers, probably, by that time. You have a New York sensibility,” she explained. However, she maintained that birthplace was the ultimate determinant. “When you’re born in New York is when you’re really a New Yorker,” she concluded.
This definition raises questions about the inclusivity of New York’s identity. For instance, it excludes notable figures like Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who was born in Kampala, Uganda, and director Spike Lee, raised in Atlanta but now a passionate Knicks fan. Writer Fran Lebowitz, actress Chloë Sevigny, and artist Andy Warhol also fall outside Lopez’s criteria, despite their profound influence on the city’s cultural landscape. Even the Harlem Renaissance—whose iconic figures such as Zora Neale Hurston, Langston Hughes, and Louis Armstrong helped shape New York’s artistic heritage—was born in the American South and migrated to the city as part of the Great Migration. Their contributions, though pivotal, would not meet Lopez’s stringent requirement.
Historical Roots of the Term
The debate over the term “New Yorker” is not new, nor is it confined to modern discourse. Historically, the city’s identity has been shaped by waves of immigration and cultural exchange. The Lenape, the original inhabitants of the region now known as New York, referred to their homeland as Lenapehoking, a term meaning “the land of the common people.” In the early 17th century, Dutch traders “purchased” the territory, initiating a chain of events that would redefine the area’s name and significance. At first, it was called New Amsterdam, but during a brief period of conflict with the English, it was also known as New Orange.
When the English settlers took control in the late 17th century, they renamed the settlement in honor of King James II, then the Duke of York. This name change, though symbolic, did not fully reflect the reality of the place. The Duke had never actually lived in the territory, yet the city’s identity became inextricably linked to his lineage. The Oxford English Dictionary traces the earliest use of “New Yorker” as a demonym to 1738, when Benjamin Franklin employed it in his “Poor Richard’s Almanack.” The term “New Yorkian” emerged later in the 1800s, but “New Yorker” eventually became the more widely accepted label.
Interestingly, the founding of the iconic magazine “The New Yorker” in 1925 by Harold Ross and Jane Grant further complicates the definition. Ross, born in Aspen, Colorado, and Grant, raised in Joplin, Missouri, established the publication with a vision that extended beyond the city’s borders. Despite this, the magazine’s name and its cultural significance became synonymous with New York itself. Over time, the publication’s editors-in-chief, including figures like Bobble, have often hailed from outside the city, yet the term “New Yorker” remains a powerful symbol of the city’s character.
Residency vs. Origin: A Divided City
In a city home to nine million residents, the question of who qualifies as a New Yorker is as contentious as it is subjective. The debate has fueled passionate arguments from individuals across the spectrum of residency duration. Some argue that the 10-year rule, which suggests that anyone who has lived in the city for a decade can claim the title, is a fair compromise. Others, like Lopez, defend the notion that birthplace is the only valid criterion, while still others advocate for a more inclusive approach that recognizes the contributions of immigrants and newcomers.
Proponents of Lopez’s position often cite the city’s roots in the Bronx as a foundational element of its identity. The borough, where she was born and raised, has long been a cultural epicenter, particularly for music and entertainment. Her hit song “On the Floor,” which celebrates the spirit of the Bronx, underscores how personal origins can shape one’s sense of belonging. However, critics contend that this definition overlooks the diverse communities that have built New York over centuries. For example, the immigrant kids who grew up on the city’s subways or the Bangladeshi cab drivers and Yemeni bodega owners who have made the city their home are not included under Lopez’s criteria, despite their integral role in its daily life.
The discussion also touches on broader sociopolitical implications. Some view Lopez’s definition as echoing nativist sentiments, particularly those from the right, who often emphasize cultural purity and traditional roots. Others see it as a celebration of the city’s unique character, rooted in its history of immigration and the blending of global influences. The city’s identity, which is both international and deeply provincial, has always been a mosaic of cultures, and the debate over the demonym reflects this complexity.
The Search for a Common Standard
As the conversation continues, one thing becomes clear: New Yorkers are not unified in their understanding of what it means to be from the city. Xochitl Gonzalez, a Brooklyn native and author of “Last Night in Brooklyn,” acknowledges this diversity. “I would never tell anybody who’d been here for longer than 10 years that they’re not a New Yorker,” she said, but she also noted that her personal criteria exclude those who arrive later in life. “When I think about people that are New Yorkers, I reserve that classification for those born and raised in the city or who arrived as children in one of the five boroughs.”
This perspective highlights the tension between heritage and belonging. While some argue that upbringing in the city is sufficient, others insist that birthplace is the key. The debate is further enriched by the inclusion of immigrants who settled as adults, whose contributions to New York’s cultural and economic fabric are undeniable. Yet, their status as “transplants” from other parts of the United States often places them in a separate category.
Ultimately, the term “New Yorker” remains a symbol of the city’s ever-changing nature. From the Lenape to the Dutch traders to the modern-day residents, each generation adds its own layer to the identity. Whether it’s a matter of birth, residency, or cultural impact, the definition continues to evolve, much like the city itself. As the discussion unfolds, one thing is certain: the notion of being a New Yorker is as much about personal experience as it is about historical legacy.
