This week, we discussed the persistence of the ghetto. We read sections of Patrick Sharkey’s “Stuck in Place: Urban Neighborhoods and the End of Progress Toward Racial Equality”. In these sections, he uses data to analyze the trend he refers to as “the inherited ghetto”.
I was at first, very critical of his research methods and the validity of his data. After the discussion in class, I definitely appreciate his approach. Looking back at the beginning of the reading, he writes about statistical portrayals of black communities in the media. I think this appropriately sets the scene for why he is so reliant on statistics in his writing. Statistics can often erase the actuality of situations, however, when used analytically, they can illuminate fascinating trends. I am still left wondering what can be done to improve these communities without leading to gentrification and displacement.
Sharkey writes about financially successful black families moving back to ghettos. Perhaps in some ways there is a sense of comfort when displacement, rising housing prices, and general competition over land is not a concern. We’ve learned a lot about the ways in which black people have been kept out of white neighborhoods, but less about the ways in which they have been kicked out. I’ve learned a little about the racist agendas of landlords to remove rent-stabilized tenants and sell apartments at market rate. There are many unethical but legal ways in which landlords can treat their tenants to encourage them to move out. I wonder if ghettos lack that immediate fear of displacement and if that could also contribute to black families living in ghettos regardless of socioeconomic status.
It did not seem like we determined any concrete steps that the government could take in class. I was thinking a lot about community action during class and what roles community empowerment could play in improving ghettos. The government could fund and support community organizations to a greater degree. On my study abroad trip, I was able to visit a low-income community in São Paulo that had been pushed to the peripheries of the city. The government was going to take their land, displace the residents and build a park. Due to some impressive community organizing, the neighborhood determined a strategy: show the government their commitment to the environment and sustainability. They created community gardens, alternative waste disposal, and added environmental education to their school. They have now been recognized nationally as an eco-friendly community and the government funds many of their current projects. Residents claimed that this action made the community far safer, very engaged, and driven.
This is definitely a very idealistic story and places the burden of improvement on the shoulders of oppressed communities, but I do think it is a useful example of community empowerment and improvement. I felt as though this could also connect to the discussion of infrapolitics and resistance identities provided in “Punished: Policing the Lives of Black and Latino Boys”, by Victor Rios. I found an academic article titled “Reclaiming Urban Space as Resistance: The Infrapolitics of Gardening”, by Sandrine Baudry. The article describes the greening of a city by citizens not as governmental cooperation, but as active resistance. She uses terms like “guerrilla gardening” and the use of “seed bombs” to convey a type of resistance that actually benefits the community. This does not necessarily follow Rios’ definition of resistance identities. He describes an embrace of criminality as resistance that often has self-destructive effects despite a sense of freedom. I think that the form of resistance described by Baudry ,in favor of community, could serve as a viable solution to the problems that plague urban ghettos.
Baudry Sandrine, « Reclaiming Urban Space as Resistance: The Infrapolitics of Gardening », Revue française d’études américaines, 2012/1 (n° 131), p. 32-48. DOI : 10.3917/rfea.131.0032. URL : http://www.cairn.info/revue-francaise-d-etudes-americaines-2012-1-page-32.htm
I think we can also note the racist violence that Massey and Denton mentioned in American Apartheid. They discussed the bombings and mobs that surrounded blacks in middle class white suburbs (Massey 34-35). Although this violence largely took place in the early 1920s, it was clear then that blacks had to move back to the ghettos out of necessity. They were moving for safety. Sharkey writes about the early 2000s and, while there may no longer be the same blatant violence today as there was in the 1920s, there are still instances of both explicit and implicit racism against blacks in white suburbs. I believe it’s near impossible for financially successful black families to want to live in white neighborhoods where they experience prejudice and discrimination. I think this is one of the ways in which these families have been kicked out of the white suburbs for I cannot imagine anyone wanting to live in a neighborhood where they are not wanted.
I’ve actually been thinking a lot about the conformity of Levittown (and suburbia in general) and capitalism. Though it definitely was created as a method to perpetuate economic growth (Levittown aimed to quickly maximize homes built) and exemplifies capitalist conformity/control, I think there’s some interesting nuance that Gans briefly brings up in rebuttal to the most pressing criticisms. He mentions that criticizing the “cookie cutter” likeness of homes in Levittown can actually be understood as a classed argument, in which the conformity of physical appearances actually allows families of different socioeconomic backgrounds to conform/fit in, and that desiring individuality in homes is a higher-class taste. Not sure if I entirely buy this argument, but it was definitely an interesting point that made me consider why I think suburbia is distasteful, and if my perspective of that is a classed belief.