But I’d say that a Spanish Catholic mission — a shining example of European cultural imperialism over native populations in the Americas; more an outpost than a neighborhood — doesn’t have much to do with 1950s Mexican and later Central/South American immigrant populations.

This is everyone’s neighborhood and nobody’s neighborhood. Let’s either get along and respect each other, or have an all out tribal battle for complete supremacy like our ancestors would’ve done.

“Dominance” could refer to the “naming rights” established by a minority aristocracy (the Spanish), or it could refer to a myopic modern-day perception of The Mission as a “Hispanic” ghetto.

“New” is a horrible minefield of a word, in the blogosphere. For some people, it could refer to the ’40s through the ’60s; for others, it could refer to the ’80s and ’90s — as your link suggests. For the 20-somethings who are a large contingent of the readers of this blog, “new” means “after 2000″.

Those European immigrants may have grumbled things about “all these non-European immigrants, boo hiss,” and that wouldn’t have been very nice or forward-thinking of them.

Today when people grumble things about “all these non-Hispanic transplants, boo hiss,” it’s maybe not very nice or forward-thinking.

That’s not to say that gentrification is awesome and unobjectionable. But it’s worth reflecting on how we perceive ownership of various spaces and neighborhoods, and how we collectively deal with inevitable changes in communities over time.

Oh, and by the way, learn to use a semi-colon where it is appropriate. (Bonus snark)

Anyway, this neighborhood is rapidly changing again. I wonder if any of the violence is due to how fast this change is occurring.