Arlene Davila’s work on the gentrification of East Harlem in Barrio Dreams presents a new perspective on gentrification that I have not yet encountered. The majority of work concerning gentrification that I have read focuses on Black neighborhoods, ignoring the diversity and marginalization of Latino populations throughout New York and other major metropolitan areas. Providing further evidence of the black-white binary that pervades popular racial understandings, the clear lack of literature on this topic poses a problematic stance. By addressing “El Barrio,” Davila offers a variant perspective on gentrification, one that places culture within the context of a neoliberal city at the crux. The contradictions with economics and with the memory and aspirations of “El Barrio” explain the complex political space the neighborhood inhabits.
The creation of culture as a commodity presents a complex dynamic between the residents of East Harlem and the policies enacted to further gentrification. Davila argues that residents attempts to maintain and perpetuate the preeminent Puerto Rican and Latino culture within the neighborhood plays into the commodification of that same culture into a tourist attraction and an area of outside investment. At the same time, Davila presents the contradiction within neoliberalism that purport color-blind policies while using ethnicity and culture as methods for advancing economic policies. This presents a paradox, where retainment of culture both perpetuates and is antithetical to gentrification and neoliberal policies. Any ventures to rid “El Barrio” of the negative connotations of poverty or crime, in turn, lead to a greater interest in development catering to middle and upper-middle class residents, which displaces many of the poor and working class that were essential in creating the thriving culture of East Harlem.
The ultimate goal would then to produce gentrification without displacement, attempts to maintain the very culture of the neighborhood without making way for an economic constituency that would eliminate the state of the neighborhood now. As long as neoliberal policies use the culture of the neighborhood as a means for greater economic returns and as a way to alter the neighborhood dynamics, the core of East Harlem will continue to be threatened.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Week 7
I found this week’s readings to be particularly poignant, especially when relating to discussions I’ve been having in my other classes. I find that cross-race solidarity is essential in understanding the underlying system of racism and oppression as it manifests itself through various oppressed groups.
Grace Hong’s analysis of “A Fire in Fontana”, by Hisaye Yamamoto, relates racial discrimination, on both a personal and state level, to the idea of property ownership. Historically, people of color have been deprived of property on the basis of their color, whereas, reiterating what Harris has written, whiteness has been the basis of property and privilege therein. While the racial inequities have been evidenced is different ways for blacks and Japanese, internment and denial of citizenship for Japanese and the obvious ramifications of Slavery and Jim Crow Laws for African Americans, both have dealt with violent repercussions on the basis of their identities.
All of this hints to the ideas of intersectionality and the deconstruction of a hierarchy of oppression. Intersectionality is the idea that various modes of oppression, not solely race but also class, gender, sexuality, etc., do not act independently; rather, they are all interrelated and create a system of oppression reflecting the intersection of multiple forms of oppression. By looking at forms of discrimination in this way, we are able to undermine the notion of a hierarchy of oppression, where one group’s oppression trumps others. This set of beliefs directly plays into the political ideology of the oppressor, pitting one disenfranchised group with another rather than fighting directly for equal rights or against those who are creating these inequalities. It is not enough to simply understand one’s own oppressions, but instead, to place those within a greater context of all of those who are oppressed.
Rather than looking bleakly at the future of race relations in the United States, Hong ends positively, suggesting that “A Fire in Fontana” can be read as the “basis of an oppositional political project through its creation of an alternative collective memory, its imagining of a space where the cross-race solidarity that did not happen in the past could be forged in the future” (308).
Grace Hong’s analysis of “A Fire in Fontana”, by Hisaye Yamamoto, relates racial discrimination, on both a personal and state level, to the idea of property ownership. Historically, people of color have been deprived of property on the basis of their color, whereas, reiterating what Harris has written, whiteness has been the basis of property and privilege therein. While the racial inequities have been evidenced is different ways for blacks and Japanese, internment and denial of citizenship for Japanese and the obvious ramifications of Slavery and Jim Crow Laws for African Americans, both have dealt with violent repercussions on the basis of their identities.
All of this hints to the ideas of intersectionality and the deconstruction of a hierarchy of oppression. Intersectionality is the idea that various modes of oppression, not solely race but also class, gender, sexuality, etc., do not act independently; rather, they are all interrelated and create a system of oppression reflecting the intersection of multiple forms of oppression. By looking at forms of discrimination in this way, we are able to undermine the notion of a hierarchy of oppression, where one group’s oppression trumps others. This set of beliefs directly plays into the political ideology of the oppressor, pitting one disenfranchised group with another rather than fighting directly for equal rights or against those who are creating these inequalities. It is not enough to simply understand one’s own oppressions, but instead, to place those within a greater context of all of those who are oppressed.
Rather than looking bleakly at the future of race relations in the United States, Hong ends positively, suggesting that “A Fire in Fontana” can be read as the “basis of an oppositional political project through its creation of an alternative collective memory, its imagining of a space where the cross-race solidarity that did not happen in the past could be forged in the future” (308).
Monday, October 5, 2009
Week 5
Although the overarching theme of the readings this week is the racial segregation and subsequent inequalities forced upon African American communities, it is not necessarily what struck me. While reading American Apartheid, the idea of assimilation seemed like an underlying theme in the comparisons between residential segregation of American Americans in relation to other minority groups.
Historically, “U.S. cities served as vehicles for integration, economic advancement, and, ultimately, assimilation into American life” (18). Thus, the huge influxes of immigrants, primarily from Europe, could all someday achieve economic and social stability within the United States. The goal of assimilation resonated with all once disenfranchised and underprivileged groups. This is evidenced not only within circles of nineteenth-century African American elites, who “could best overcome their disabilities by adopting the culture and values of the white middle class” (23), but also more recently with the sub-prime mortgage targeted towards African American communities. Yet the process of assimilation seems to be highly dependent on race. While the majority of immigrants have followed that same trajectory towards assimilation into “American life,” African Americans have been highly excluded. With highly racialized real estate institutions and policies, even those who have been able to gain a stronger socioeconomic standing are unable to attain any sort of upward social mobility. Therefore, regardless of a middle-income status that may be achieved, “black segregation does not vary by affluence” (85). Any attempts at desegregation by middle-class African Americans are immediately thwarted by a decline in white interest in that same housing market, and thus a greater demand within the African American community and the creation of re-segregation.
The ideas behind this harken back to the notion of passing, or Kim’s graph representing racial triangulation, where Asians (among others, such as Hispanics) will perpetually be seen as “outsiders” or “unassimilable,” the constant foreigner. Even so, Asians and Hispanics, although still underprivileged in comparison to Whites have been able to, economically and within the housing sector, assimilate within American life. Why is it that African Americans are excluded from such an ability for assimilation? How was it become that, according to Massey and Denton, entire African American communities have apparently become social pariahs? Where:
“People growing up in such an environment have little direct experience with the culture, norms, and behaviors of the rest of American society and few social contacts with members [of] other racial groups.” (77)
The amount of racial segregation and inability to integrate African American neighborhoods at this point has become so extreme that any possibility seems unreal. But what makes the African American experience in such a case vary so differently from other people of color?
Historically, “U.S. cities served as vehicles for integration, economic advancement, and, ultimately, assimilation into American life” (18). Thus, the huge influxes of immigrants, primarily from Europe, could all someday achieve economic and social stability within the United States. The goal of assimilation resonated with all once disenfranchised and underprivileged groups. This is evidenced not only within circles of nineteenth-century African American elites, who “could best overcome their disabilities by adopting the culture and values of the white middle class” (23), but also more recently with the sub-prime mortgage targeted towards African American communities. Yet the process of assimilation seems to be highly dependent on race. While the majority of immigrants have followed that same trajectory towards assimilation into “American life,” African Americans have been highly excluded. With highly racialized real estate institutions and policies, even those who have been able to gain a stronger socioeconomic standing are unable to attain any sort of upward social mobility. Therefore, regardless of a middle-income status that may be achieved, “black segregation does not vary by affluence” (85). Any attempts at desegregation by middle-class African Americans are immediately thwarted by a decline in white interest in that same housing market, and thus a greater demand within the African American community and the creation of re-segregation.
The ideas behind this harken back to the notion of passing, or Kim’s graph representing racial triangulation, where Asians (among others, such as Hispanics) will perpetually be seen as “outsiders” or “unassimilable,” the constant foreigner. Even so, Asians and Hispanics, although still underprivileged in comparison to Whites have been able to, economically and within the housing sector, assimilate within American life. Why is it that African Americans are excluded from such an ability for assimilation? How was it become that, according to Massey and Denton, entire African American communities have apparently become social pariahs? Where:
“People growing up in such an environment have little direct experience with the culture, norms, and behaviors of the rest of American society and few social contacts with members [of] other racial groups.” (77)
The amount of racial segregation and inability to integrate African American neighborhoods at this point has become so extreme that any possibility seems unreal. But what makes the African American experience in such a case vary so differently from other people of color?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)