In the readings from There Goes the ‘Hood: Views of Gentrification from the Ground Up, there were many lingering questions that I began to consider in the context of my own neighborhood. In my understanding and experience with gentrification in my neighborhood, subtle changes are noticeable. There is this aspect of familiarity that becomes disturbed when new residents enter a neighborhood. It was when I saw an increase in white people roaming the area that made me question what was going on in East Harlem. Although I noticed this change, I did not notice an entirely new social scene take place. I still saw the same people out playing dominoes, saw my same neighbors every day, and interacted with the same friends. However, the affected familiarity and change still altered aspects of the social and cultural neighborhood.

The reading raised an important point about how the changes in service are affected by the new residents. The reading mentioned instances of the police and how their influence changed depending on who requested the change. In class, another expert question mentioned if there would be a difference between an upper-class black vs. upper-class white gentrifying a neighborhood. While class matters, race holds a vital piece to the puzzle of gentrification. If more police influence were requested in a neighborhood, it would most likely be upheld due to a white resident’s request in comparison to a black resident. Even the usual residents who hang out on the corner are ostracized due to a new resident speaking against something a longtime resident may have been doing for years. The agency to make change becomes vital and will usually fall into the lap of someone that has the privilege to make that change, whether it is subtle or major. From reading these instances, I thought deeply about the changes in my own neighborhood. While I used to think the pop-up café shop or the new store was a cool touch, they actually have a negative effect. A deli that I have been going to for years had to be closed down due to a new store owned by a white resident opening up a block away. These bars and restaurants that open up bring in a new wave of people that interact only with the neighborhood and its gentrified portions.

Another question I asked myself is if gentrification only exists in residents moving in. A new bar opening up that is for wealthier individuals in the surrounding area may bring in white incomers who eventually may want to live in the area due to the amenities. Gentrification doesn’t have to necessarily be a new resident but rather a new consumer to the social amenities in the area. Even the presence of white people that may not live in the area become apparent signs of gentrification. Amenities play a huge role in influencing residents. Even the conception of a neighborhood as “edgy” or “cool” can influence new incomers. I think it would be interesting taking a study that looks solely into why the gentry chooses to live in a specific neighborhood and what factors they look at. While the reading did incorporate the gentry, it would be interesting to understand why these individuals choose specific neighborhoods, surpassing the desire for cheaper rent.

During class, we touched upon Vargas briefly and discussed the Latin kings and their interaction with the police and residents of the community. My question was not originally incorporated within the previous class discussion so I wanted to explore it and go into detail within this blog post. With the idea of “Kings own cops” being spread around throughout the community, is there any benefit in working with the Latin Kings or would that simply garner a form of legitimacy over the police? Is legitimacy viable if the police and the Latin kings base their foundation on the exploitation of the residents? (135-136)

As I formulated the questions, ideas of legitimacy continued to come to the forefront while I was reading the article by Vargas. While the Latin kings had codes they followed when they were in the wrong, they needed to establish their legitimacy. They often had to use fear tactics and exploit the residents so that they wouldn’t call the police, which hindered their activities throughout the neighborhood. Within the perspective of the residents, I found that legitimacy was only applicable towards the police and the Latin kings. Residents are almost in a state of limbo where they have no option or place to trust. If they resorted to letting the gang members roam around, violence or disturbances would continue. If they resorted towards the police, the gang would find out who that individual is and threaten them. It is essentially a catch 22 for the residents within the neighborhood with no escape except moving out.

Within our discussions in class, resistance identities became very interesting towards my thought process. Questions that continue to linger as I read this piece is the constructional makeup of a resistance identity. Gangs can embody many ideologies and provide many avenues for its members to thrive upon. There is definitely an individual resistance identity present but I wonder how this is amplified through gang membership along with its activities. Do these kinships ultimately garner a greater resistance identity with detrimental effects? How does the concept of membership to a gang play a role in that identity? As it definitely contributes to group identity, I feel as though gang membership holds a different weight which is where I see resistance identity intersecting.

What I am trying to additionally construct my thoughts around are the positive and negative effects that gangs may have for a community. Growing up around the talk of gangs and even having friends who associated their selves with gangs placed negative connotations on them. Interestingly enough, I did not feel the same way about the people individually. It became the ideology around what the gang represented that I grew to dislike but not the individual members that I knew and went to school with. They weren’t bad people but rather the association and labeling of their gang is what threw me off.

While the presence of these organizations that help mediate and control the violence of gangs are helpful, I questioned the legitimacy of gangs as a whole. If cooperation is desired, is that dealing with urban terrorists? If gangs are given more leeway, will there simply be more violence within the community? As I continue to address and think about these questions throughout the semester, I find it important to not reduce gangs to a group of people that want to hurt a community. There are motives and more to gangs and their memberships that is submerged from the surface that we must engage when discussing this.