Carlos: Shelby on Integration, Segregation, and Gentrification

By

In Chapter Two of Dark Ghettos: Injustice, Dissent, and Reform, Tommie Shelby considers the possible justifications behind forced integration and self-segregation as responses to addressing poverty and the concentration of disadvantages in black ghettos, concluding that forced integration is wrong and self-segregation can be a valid response to injustice. Overall, I agree with Shelby's points in this chapter and believe much of this chapter can apply to the real practice of gentrification

I believe the distinction Shelby continuously makes throughout chapter two between integration in the Jim Crow era and residential integration cannot be overstated. That is, it is essential that people have the choice to live in racially pluralistic communities, not that people must live in racially diverse communities. Of course, Shelby provides various reasons why forced integration is wrong, but I would like to explore how forced integration, in the real pattern of gentrification, can further harm the residents of poor ghettos. Now, I understand gentrification as the process of wealthy people and prosperous businesses entering a poor ghetto to then inadvertently (and sometimes deliberately) force the poor community members out. I believe gentrification understood like this resembles parts of residential and economic integration. On the part of Elizabeth Anderson's residential integration, through gentrification, the culture of the residents is threatened by the introduction of new residents and businesses. Shelby believes that black folks can choose to self-segregate to practice certain life styles, stay close to amenities and businesses, and maintain familiar culture. Even so, some may argue that some of these cultural practices and aspects of the community serve to preserve negative behaviors and actions in the ghetto. As such, the gentrification of the ghetto could be said to be beneficial as these negative aspects are overwritten by positive businesses, people, and cultural norms. Nevertheless, I would argue gentrification does more than target the 'negative' parts of the ghetto; gentrification erases and overwrites the entirety of the ghetto, eliminating the reason why some folks self-segregate and forcing the previous residents to leave. Gentrification erases culture indiscriminately, replacing it with a culture the previous ghetto residents cannot relate to, effectively forcing people out. Gentrification in the form of forced residential integration further harms the already disadvantaged ghetto residents.

Additionally, when it comes to economic integration in the form of gentrification, although the gentrification process could be said to provide economic growth to the ghetto, these benefits are commonly unavailable to the indigenous ghetto residents because the system of distributing advantages is unchanged. Regardless of the economic growth economic integration may have through gentrification, it is meaningly less if class hierarchy is not abolished first. Otherwise, gentrification is only "an efficient way for antagonistic social classes to live more peaceably among each other" (77). It doesn't matter if gentrification raises property values and brings new business to the ghetto if the previous residents can't benefit from the economic growth, or worse, are unable to pay property taxes and shop at the new businesses. Leaving the indigenous ghetto residents unable to afford their own homes or shop at the nearby businesses effectively forces them to leave. As such, economic integration through gentrification doesn't solve the issue of poverty in ghettos, rather it only serves to force  residents out to make room for new, wealthier people and businesses.

As such, I fully agree with Shelby on the justification of self-segregation as an answer to injustice. Furthermore, in the case of gentrification, "closing ranks" can be a possible defense against as well. Although Shelby does not equate closing ranks to self-segregation, I think both actions can achieve the same goal of protecting against encroachments on culture and cost of living. In the case of self-segregation, Shelby points to this as a defense mechanism against folks who may harbor ill will against black folks. Before black folks are sure that "their fellow citizens oppose and seek to rectify ideological, institutional, and structural racism and are committed to bringing about fair and equality of opportunity" (74), it is reasonable for black folks to rely on self-segregation as a defense against further harm. In a similar manner, I think the actions of closing ranks to oppose gentrification may be used until ghetto residents are sure that they will be able to live in the changed community. That is, assurances of cost of living and protection of culture and ways of living are necessary. Until these assurances are made, I believe closing ranks and self-segregation can be valid responses to the encroachment of gentrification and harmful integration. Closing ranks can prevent new businesses who will harm (either inadvertently or deliberately) current residents and existing businesses from entering the ghetto. The same may apply with new residents building new homes that would increase costs of living through property taxes. Closing ranks can also help prevent new residents (Karens?) who would harm the community and culture from living in the ghetto. I will admit I'm unsure about the legal possibilities of closing ranks, but in a similar manner to self-segregation, I believe this strategy can serve to protect ghetto residents from further harms.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Livia: Táíwò and Economic Success in the Global South

By
  Reconsidering Reparations by Professor Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò illuminates the large extent to which racism and colonialism played in creating the current global economic structure, in which the global north dominates the global south. Additionally, this book highlights how current policies implemented by global institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank have further strengthened and reaffirmed this positioning. Taking into account this global historical perspective, we can better understand how “consequences flow from some other parts of the world to other parts, often across national borders, and in ways that complicate geographically and politically narrow ways of thinking about reparations” (24). Thus, some sort of international obligation of social justice must be exist. Táíwò’s emphasis on the role that slavery and colonialism played in establishing the current economic order makes me think about the signal which this sends to the Global South in the development of their p...
Read more

Carlos: Response to Henry's Conclusion

By
I've spent way too long trying to argue against Henry's point because it just seems wrong to conclude with "there is no current social framework by which we might call their lasting effects socially unjust–at least under the political conception of justice". Yet, the more I thought about it, the more I felt I had to agree with Henry's argument regardless of how strange it felt to do so. Still, I did have a few ideas as I was thinking of how to refute Henry's conclusion: -------------------------------------------- 1) With the hypothetical situation Henry provides, if we were to fully extend its logic to our current world, I think Prof. Hurley would have also created a division between the A and B group that would have maintained even into Tuesday. I think were that division were to have taken place, even after Prof. Hurley disbanded the government, the division would have remained and the hierarchy of power would continue into the rest of the week. It seems fa...
Read more

Smith, Locke, Harris, and Justice

By
 On page 79, Smith writes, "the violation of justice is injury: it does real and positive hurt to some particular persons," and thus it is a virtue that, unlike beneficence, warrants resentment if we fail to fulfill it. Upon reading this, I immediately thought, well how are you defining justice?  It became very clear in the following pages that Smith's conception of justice is nearly identical to Locke's Law of Nature. On page 80, he writes, "Among equals each individual is naturally, and antecedent to the institution of civil government , regarded as having a right both to defend himself from injuries, and to exact a certain degree of punishment for those which have been done to them." He continues to say that justice is only those transgressions which spectators would have the right to, and would be compelled to, punish whoever commits them. After this, he explains that no one has a right to advance their own happiness at the expense of someone else's...
Read more