In the excerpts from There Goes the ‘Hood, author Lance Freeman takes a deep dive into the gentrification phenomenon. He frames his argument around what he calls “the arrival of whites” into predominately black neighbors. In his analysis he includes testimonials from a variety of residents, including both long-time residents and the new coming white “gentrifiers.” Among the observations from the long-time residents, many cite the white presence for the general improvement of the neighborhood. One observer, Henry, notes, “You’re getting more police protection and everything, as expected. I guess the whites demanded more of the Police Department and they’re just doing their job—what they say are their job.” From Henry’s perspective, the police directly responded to a complaint from the new, wealthy, white community, while they have long neglected the needs of the black neighborhood pre-gentrification. While some connect the rise in police responsiveness to tangible factors such as rising real estate values, improved community activism, and increased investment, others turn to conspiratorial narratives to explain the gentrification question.
The common conspiracy theory expressed by some of these long-time residents suggests a deeply ingrained white superiority complex towards blacks. In some related conspiracy theories, this feeling manifests in truly sinister scenarios. Take for instance the quoted exchange from the movie Boyz N the Hood where Furious explains a conspiracy. “Why is it that there is a gun shop in almost every corner in this community? … For the same reason there’s a liquor store on almost every corner in the black community. They want us to kill ourselves.” This quote illustrates the dark mistrust felt by some blacks toward the white dominated society. The gentrification conspiracy theory doesn’t go as far as the one Furious explains, but the sense that the system is rigged to push blacks out of their communities does have some legitimacy in history. Freeman explains past policies that sound like conspiracies but were actually implemented. Policies such as racially segregated zoning laws, restrictive covenants, and “red lining” are all relics of the past, but the underlying racial overtones are still lodged in the national consciousness.
One cannot ignore how these past policies still inform the opinions of many during the present day. Although economic trends and social movement can explain gentrification concretely, the conspiratorial explanations reveal the racial oppression that many still feel in society today. The movement away from this feeling will be arduous but may be eased by initiatives that lessen the blow gentrification causes long-time black residents. A simple start would be the preservation of historic culture within gentrified neighborhoods. This could indicate that newcomers embrace the cultural aspects and wish to live as a part of the neighborhood rather than create anew based on their own culture. Although a relatively minor initiative, such an act would signal a genuine interest in integration, and disavow the segregationist policies of the past.
I think the use of “conspiracy” in the label is interesting because, at least to me, that word comes with a connotation of mistrust or disbelief. As if to say gentrification is not a real process, or not something that is really taking place in cities all around the United States. Perhaps the “conspiracy” reference is towards the idea that gentrification is racially motivated, rather than economically motivated. However, I believe that talking about the idea of racial motivation as a conspiracy can still be harmful because it discounts the power of perception and delegitimizes the feelings of community members. Although, from the readings and information we have been exposed to in this class, I believe there is a negative racial element to patterns of gentrification, even if someone disagrees with me just the idea that traditionally marginalized groups feel that they are being mistreated that can still be harmful to their understanding of their role in a neighborhood. As Freeman says, “The perceived inability of blacks to achieve the type of community they desire, whether because the powers that be refused to provide services or blacks lacked the political savvy to demand the services they desire, all serve to reinforce notions of blacks as a subordinate caste” (Freeman, 111).
I agree withe reply from above. The term conspiracy tends to venture into the realm of disbelief and can ignore the very real social connotations implications of gentrification, separate from economics. The process of decoding gentrification is sticky because it is entangled in multiple forms of human motivation. To some, moving into these neighborhoods is purely an economically feasible decision. Others are drawn to the culture of areas, others location and so on. These motivations are not too different from the ones found in migrational patterns. However with gentrification, there can be another level of complications when the implications of a new influx of people negatively or adversely affect the people there. To me, there is a fine line between what can be considered gentrification and what was considered colonialism. In both cases, it is the decision of those in power to determine or reevaluate the value of an area without the input and inclusion of those who lived there before. So I would push back on using the term conspiracy. This is to ignore the fact that it is the majority that has the power to regulate and dictate whether an are is profitable or not.