Tutu: Shelby and How Favelas Further His Argument

By

            In Shelby’s discussion and description of how ghettos came to be and how they function, favelas kept returning as a potential tangible example that proves many of Shelby’s points. Favelas are informal settlements that reside on the outskirts of urban centers. Favelas were established by formerly enslaved people that found themselves in a society that worked to impoverish them due to prejudice systematically. In response, slowly, favelas were communally erected to better serve the community's needs without having to rely on institutions that did not suit their needs. This notion of the right to refuse in a system that aims to impoverish one’s group and instead create a system that serves and values the work done seems very similar to Shelby’s argument that Black Americans have the right to refuse to participate in an unfair system. 

Shelby writes, "Group self-segregation need not be entirely voluntary, as it may be partly a response to unjust exclusion or economic disadvantage. But black self-segregation is still a choice, albeit a constrained one when there are other acceptable options….” This is true with Favelas since they were created as a response to systematically starving government resources in their areas. But as Shelby also highlights, although the genesis might have been forced, inhabitants' choice to continue living in these “ghettos” should be seen as their right since “often they engage in these practices to protect their shared interests in a society where they are deeply disadvantaged and vulnerable to mistreatment and political marginalization.” As many in the favela will say, they refuse to leave their community even if they can “integrate” into affluent areas because the favela is their home, their community. It is where they feel the most empowered, and that sense of empowerment overrides any “benefit” from moving to a whiter, more governmentally-funded neighborhood. Also, as Shelby highlights, “If some blacks refuse to go along with integration efforts, this may be because of reasonable disagreement about whether these efforts would actually remedy the problem….” This is also a reality for Favela inhabitants because, as past history has shown, the Brazilian government tends to look mostly after itself and not its people. 

            I also think favelas highlight a subtle point within the claim that Shelby makes “There is no doubt a sense in which thriving black communities might be a utopian fantasy: advantaged whites won’t let it happen because it will cost them more than they want to pay and the forces of opposition aren’t strong enough to overturn this reactionary preference. ” I think favelas prove that thriving black communities can exist if approached with a justice framework and not the medical model. Utilizing the medical model, it might seem that Favelas are not thriving, but they seem to do so when implementing a justice framework. In favelas, Black Brazilians have created school systems, health infrastructure, policing, etc. cetera that serve their needs; they created institutions that govern and see them as worthy of proper resources in order to live. This is a thriving community, in my opinion, and it could not be seen as such because favelas are not officially recognized. Even though every Brazilian citizen has some relationship with the favelas, they are still deemed informal settlements by the government. Thus, by not granting it legitimacy, the Brazilian government can diminish the thriving nature of the various favela communities. If a justice framework was implemented, the fact that favelas have institutions that take into account the most vulnerable populations of the general society could be seen as successful by not only Black Brazilians but the White Brazilians that are primarily in charge of the government.

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