Radical educator Paulo Freire argued that the purpose of education was humanization. By this he meant that any form of education must begin from the experience and knowledge of the oppressed, and that the oppressed and oppressors must enter into a community of learning.
It strikes me that the current white privilege discussion breaks almost all the rules of humanization. Privilege fundamentally erases the experiences and knowledge of the oppressors and dictates to them a knowledge that they must adopt in order to be considered members of the social justice community.
We must find ways to humanize both oppressors and the oppressed because both the oppressors and the oppressed are, in fact, human.
Before I get to my arguments about a way to call oppressors to a higher consciousness, I want to first credit the folks that I got this idea from, lest I be accused of appropriation. I am in conversation with a number of black nationalists/radicals. One of those who has had the most influence on me is Zone the Divine Mind, a spoken word artist and community organizer from Birmingham.
In contrast to many white "allies," Zone is about calling folks, mostly black, to a higher plane of consciousness and knowledge of self, meaning an understanding of black history and culture and of the way that government, culture, and economics place black folks within the societal hierarchy. He is fundamentally positive in the belief that this form of consciousness is liberating and empowering.
What occurs to me is that WHITE PEOPLE NEED THIS TOO and that knowledge of self is the goal of the white privilege discussion, but in a dehumanizing way.
Thus, as opposed to privilege, educators need to talk to the oppressors in a way that calls them to consciousness and knowledge of self.
Instead of essentially telling sinners to repent (privilege), knowledge of self opens a conversation about who oppressors are as a people and how we're placed in society.
In contrast to the visceral anger elicited by the privilege discussion, the oppressors respond with curiosity and puzzlement, which is much more amenable to learning than anger.
The discussion can start something like this:
Person lacking knowledge of self: I am not racist; I treat everyone as a human being.
Educator: Only a white person with no knowledge of self would ever claim that they are not racist.
The accusatory tone is now gone and the person lacking knowledge of self is simply puzzled. They ask, implicitly, "why would being racist constitute knowledge of self?"
The next steps may be more difficult, but the educator must demonstrate that global white supremacy exists and that everyone is subject to it, though they may experience it in different and novel ways.
One way to do this is to provide an example. (This is predicated on dealing with people that actually care about racism; we shouldn't be even trying to educate those that do not.)
Person lacking knowledge of self: Global white supremacy may exist, but I don't support or participate in it.
Educator: How can you not participate? Your tax dollars support the criminal justice system.
This shifts the terrain from individual racism to how global white supremacy constructs the white racial subject.
In essence, whites, though that may want to be non-racist, are forced through government to participate in global white supremacy through paying taxes, which demonstrates that every white is, in fact subject to, though not oppressed by, white supremacy.
This is the beginning of knowledge of self because it shows that whites are racist vis-a-vis their position in the system instead of their individual feelings or beliefs.
It seems that it is time for positivity in the conversation about white racism and this seems to be a better way to get at who white people are and why as opposed to just telling folks, "you're privileged."
Friday, March 6, 2015
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Tanner Colby and the White Postracial Fantasy
I must admit that I hadn't heard of Tanner Colby prior to him being brought to Birmingham to speak at the 2015 MLK Unity Breakfast. I found it interesting that in this moment of renewed racial protest and an increasing focus on institutional racism, especially within the criminal justice system, the organizers of the Breakfast would pick a white guy to talk about race. His topic, residential segregation, is quite timely, especially in Birmingham with its status as most segregated city in the South, 15th in the nation. My interest was also piqued because I have written extensively on residential segregation both in my dissertation and in our paper published in August of 2014.
The conversation of race and urban development is an important conversation to have, but I believe that Tanner Colby's work falls well short of the standard necessary for meaningful change to happen in our region. There are many, many other authors who have written on residential segregation that would have been much better choices for talking about the topic. Douglass Massey and Nancy Denton, both white, wrote the seminal work in American Apartheid and William Julius Wilson has written extensively on what he calls the "underclass."
While I can only speculate, it seems that Colby was chosen for two reasons. 1) Most importantly, he writes about the region and 2) his perspective as a fairly un-self critical white person presents a point-of-view that is palatable to whites in metro Birmingham, while not undermining, and even to some degree supporting, the gentrification agenda of REV Birmingham and the city. While some of the history in Colby's book is probably pretty new for most whites, it doesn't challenge the practices of the white community today in any way, practices which we have documented.
Colby's thesis is fairly simple and based almost exclusively on a naive integrationist assumption. He argues that post-Civil Rights, integration failed because whites abandoned cities. This argument is confirmed in a more or less scientific consensus. However, he argues that integration also failed because the black leadership that was left behind built institutions or took control of institutions, which became a sort of homogenous fiefdom where black leaders would not integrate or relinquish power in the name of integration. I find this reasoning incredibly strange. Blacks do not control most of the powerful institutions in Birmingham, whites do, still. Think about it:
Universities: mostly white
Media: white
Schools: black
Government: black
Hospitals: white
Philanthropy: white
Corporations: mostly white
Colby states that the failure of integration was due to lack of "money and human capital," but argues that some sort of naive integration is the solution and that black recalcitrance about integration is one of the barriers. This is puzzling. If the problem is one "money and human capital," doesn't it make more sense to get more money and more human capital to distressed communities? It's not that blacks won't give up their institutions for the good of their communities; it's that blacks still don't control the institutions in their communities, whites do. Thus, residential segregation is a situation caused by white flight and the fact that whites remain in control of the institutions of communities that they left.
To take it a step further, look at the money that has been spent in Birmingham over the last 15 years. $36 million spent on the destruction of Metropolitan Gardens, which displaced 2400 black people; $58 million dollars on a baseball stadium patronized by an almost exclusively white crowd; and $57 million dollars spent on an entertainment district and everybody knows who goes there. That's $151 million dollars on urban development projects in downtown that benefit almost exclusively a white audience. Compare that to the recent bond initiative which was $150 million dollars for the WHOLE REST OF THE CITY. And you're telling me there's some rigid, intransigent sector of black institutions?
Finally, Colby makes no argument as to why this sort of naive integration is even desirable. As someone who is a leader in an integrated organization, I can't tell you how much a struggle not to be a stupid white person, and I can also tell you that 99% of the white people in this region have no idea even what I'm talking about. Dissolving all institutions into integrated institutions, a post-racial fantasy, would do nothing but impose white culture on blacks because of the differences in power and social position between whites and blacks. I will tell whites what Malcolm X told whites. If you are sincere about racial justice, go back to your white communities and challenge people. Become unpopular. Risk your reputation. But, don't try to tell blacks to integrate, when, even by Tanner Colby's own admission, it has failed.
If we want to integrate, blacks and whites must be on institutional and economic parity. Then and only then is integration possible. But then, it's unnecessary.
Monday, December 8, 2014
Tim Wise, Bullying, and an End to Social Justice Warriors
I used to have a lot of respect for Tim Wise. His book, White Like Me, is inspiring and eye-opening and a must read for whites concerned with racial justice and our place in it. But, over recent months, I have become increasingly disenchanted with Wise's public engagements in which nothing is more important that his ego. Wise famously had to apologize to black activists who were calling him out for making money off black suffering, a claim that while maybe hyperbolic, speaks to the perception that Wise is about Wise and pretty much no one else. He also routinely taunts, abuses, or berates any white person, no matter how insignificant, that he feels threatens him in any way. He promotes his greatness by never failing to reveal how many death threats that he has gotten or the pressure that he's under. He's a hothead.
All of this would be fine if the attitude didn't bleed into the crew of Social Justice Warriors now populating the many overheated social media sites on the internet, who stake out the high ground and attack, refusing to engage in anything worthy of the Socratic method and even less worthy of Freirean popular education, the latter of which was designed as a way for advantaged folks to participate the cause of justice. Instead, SJWs demand to be listened to without reciprocating, claim that it is "not their job to educate," and accuse people that they know only from an avatar of all sorts of crimes against the cause of justice. Most of this has little to do with justice and everything to do with passing a rigidly scripted litmus test for entrance into the SJW community, the boundaries of which are tightly policed. I have done this many, many times myself. It was a mistake.
I suggest that we start judging people by what they do in the real world and not by their proficiency in speaking a language that has become increasingly exclusive. Instead of assuming a whole host of things about people that we randomly know, let's start engaging in conversations about people's lives and experiences. I work with many folks of all stripes, all of whom are active in social change projects, and few of whom would actually qualify for the SJW community. All of them need to be treated like human beings and, in such, and in our friendships, all of us will grow and change. Social media is a powerful tool, but it is time to step back from the combative and shrill discourse that has permeated social change efforts and focus on using social media to build real, human relationships. In fact, it is imperative to do this now.
As a means of getting started I want to share my Rules for Talking to White People About Race:
All of this would be fine if the attitude didn't bleed into the crew of Social Justice Warriors now populating the many overheated social media sites on the internet, who stake out the high ground and attack, refusing to engage in anything worthy of the Socratic method and even less worthy of Freirean popular education, the latter of which was designed as a way for advantaged folks to participate the cause of justice. Instead, SJWs demand to be listened to without reciprocating, claim that it is "not their job to educate," and accuse people that they know only from an avatar of all sorts of crimes against the cause of justice. Most of this has little to do with justice and everything to do with passing a rigidly scripted litmus test for entrance into the SJW community, the boundaries of which are tightly policed. I have done this many, many times myself. It was a mistake.
I suggest that we start judging people by what they do in the real world and not by their proficiency in speaking a language that has become increasingly exclusive. Instead of assuming a whole host of things about people that we randomly know, let's start engaging in conversations about people's lives and experiences. I work with many folks of all stripes, all of whom are active in social change projects, and few of whom would actually qualify for the SJW community. All of them need to be treated like human beings and, in such, and in our friendships, all of us will grow and change. Social media is a powerful tool, but it is time to step back from the combative and shrill discourse that has permeated social change efforts and focus on using social media to build real, human relationships. In fact, it is imperative to do this now.
As a means of getting started I want to share my Rules for Talking to White People About Race:
1. Don't make it personal. Telling someone to check their privilege when they have no idea what you are talking about will mostly likely foreclose a conversation. Instead, use scientific fact about white supremacy to demonstrate both the existence of the system and how whites benefit.
2. Teach don't tell. Activists should never say things like "it's not my job to teach you." If that is true, why bring it up in the first place; why not just let sleeping dogs lie. It's the height of assholeness to bring up a concept that people don't understand and then just tell them to go do their own research.
3. Be wary of creating provincial activist cultures that no one understands but insiders. While all forms of culture are in some way exclusive, living only in the safe world created by activists defeats the purpose. Everyone needs a home base; just don't live there.
4. Meet people where they are at. Telling someone that is white and working class that they have white privilege is likely to come across as discounting every experience that they have gone through. Use language and terminology that people understand to communicate why whites benefit from racism. Avoid specialized concepts such as white privilege until people are more familiar with the mechanics of white supremacy. It is more important for people to learn how it works than the correct terms for it.
5. Be humble. If people start to come to you for information about racism that had previously been recalcitrant, treat them with respect and dignity; not everyone is at the same level. Encourage them to dig deeper and realize that what we are doing is working.Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Rage, Midterms, and the Birmingham Land Bank Authority aka Bellistan
I've been teaching at Auburn this semester, which I think may be bad for my heart rate and overall mental health. The place reminds me of the drug and alcohol fueled insanity after the end of my first marriage, yet it brings some of the only warm memories of my childhood since Auburn football was (and is) one of the few things my dad and I agreed on. The commute is hellacious, especially the miracle of urban planning that is the 280 corridor. By the time I hit Chelsea, I'm already so enraged from the driving that it's amazing that I don't jump out of the C-Max at 50 miles per hour.
My rage has been fueled lately not so much by the Democrats crushing defeat in the midterm elections, but by the handwringing and the weeping and gnashing of teeth by all the liberal activists on my Facebook feed. Granted, the GOP victory pretty much guarantees that the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an egregious example of neoliberalism or the Mark McGwire NAFTA, will pass with bipartisan support and a presidential signature. Of course, this only proves what I have always said - that when it comes to economics, there is really only one party.
With this general state of despair and overall hatred of all things not Robyn Hyden, I decided to attend the Birmingham Land Bank Authority meeting to appraise how the process was moving and what was happening. What I saw was a Frank Underwood-esque example of how to manipulate the democratic process to the ends of an authoritarian leader, William Bell. The community development department ran the meeting, not Heager Hill, chairman of the BLBA. As one community leader stated, "William Bell is community development." Phillip Amthor began rather innocuously by presenting the new website, which seemed to pique the interest of board member Adam Snyder, who in the interested of transparency proposed that the BLBA put all relevant documents on the website. This was warmly received. Things devolved. Amthor blew through a presentation about best practices in about five minutes, leaving the distinct impression that all that mattered for the BLBA to be successful was for it to follow his majesty's RISE plan word for word. No peep from the board members.
Then came a confusing and bewildering set of events. It happened fast. Amthor and community development director John Colon presented a plan for the first group of tax delinquent properties to have their titles cleared in preparation for disposal. The plan asked for approval from the BLBA for 25 properties in Pratt City to go to the judge. The flimsy justification for this area was that the Red Rock Trail is going through Pratt City, but the real justification is that they can't do more damage than a tornado. Pratt City is the experiment. Amthor and Colon skimmed the plan, touching the high points, but never mentioning low-income housing, which would seem to be important in Pratt City. There was a vague reference on a slide to hiring a financial consultant to make housing affordable, but I left with the impression that they plan to build market-rate housing. I could be wrong about this, but that's the impression that I got.
Finally, Gwen Calhoun spoke up asking whether the people of Pratt City actually wanted this. Colon stated that they had gone to 27 neighborhood associations, suggesting that residents were involved in this decision-making. My sources tell me that community development merely went to neighborhood associations and showed a RISE propaganda video, hard-hitting participatory work by anyone's measure.
Next, Amthor and Colon presented a resolution for the BLBA to vote on. With almost no debate, Chairman Hill called for a motion on the resolution with the addition that community development had to produce a plan at the next meeting. Why would the BLBA give the ok on 25 properties without first knowing the details of how they were to be disposed? Nonetheless, it passed unanimously. Colon, Amthor, and community development had successfully railroaded the BLBA, an organization without so much as a strategic plan or a vision statement, into approving the agenda of RISE and Bell.
So, where was Bell in all this? The answer is that he was genuinely disinterested. He showed up late, checked his phone, his hair, and his fingernails, cracked a couple of jokes, left for ten minutes, and finally chimed in to quash any debate about community development's resolution. That's what he was there for.
All of this for a plan that, if it creates market-rate housing, is bound to either a) have vacant land or houses for years to come or b) lead to the gentrification of Pratt City, neither of which is acceptable.
I left disgusted, dismayed, and enraged. The complete and utter disrespect for the democratic process not just by individuals, but by supposedly democratic institutions is enough to lose all faith in this city's ability to respect it's people. No one, and I mean no one, trusts the city to do the right thing and that's why there is 20% turnout for municipal elections. What the BLBA does is not nearly as important as respecting the democratic process and rebuilding the trust between this city's leaders and its people. There are those on the board who have the ability to stop this in its tracks- you know who you are. It's going to take some guts and some real leadership, but it's time to take a stand and say "we won't take this in our city anymore. Enough!"
My rage has been fueled lately not so much by the Democrats crushing defeat in the midterm elections, but by the handwringing and the weeping and gnashing of teeth by all the liberal activists on my Facebook feed. Granted, the GOP victory pretty much guarantees that the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an egregious example of neoliberalism or the Mark McGwire NAFTA, will pass with bipartisan support and a presidential signature. Of course, this only proves what I have always said - that when it comes to economics, there is really only one party.
With this general state of despair and overall hatred of all things not Robyn Hyden, I decided to attend the Birmingham Land Bank Authority meeting to appraise how the process was moving and what was happening. What I saw was a Frank Underwood-esque example of how to manipulate the democratic process to the ends of an authoritarian leader, William Bell. The community development department ran the meeting, not Heager Hill, chairman of the BLBA. As one community leader stated, "William Bell is community development." Phillip Amthor began rather innocuously by presenting the new website, which seemed to pique the interest of board member Adam Snyder, who in the interested of transparency proposed that the BLBA put all relevant documents on the website. This was warmly received. Things devolved. Amthor blew through a presentation about best practices in about five minutes, leaving the distinct impression that all that mattered for the BLBA to be successful was for it to follow his majesty's RISE plan word for word. No peep from the board members.
Then came a confusing and bewildering set of events. It happened fast. Amthor and community development director John Colon presented a plan for the first group of tax delinquent properties to have their titles cleared in preparation for disposal. The plan asked for approval from the BLBA for 25 properties in Pratt City to go to the judge. The flimsy justification for this area was that the Red Rock Trail is going through Pratt City, but the real justification is that they can't do more damage than a tornado. Pratt City is the experiment. Amthor and Colon skimmed the plan, touching the high points, but never mentioning low-income housing, which would seem to be important in Pratt City. There was a vague reference on a slide to hiring a financial consultant to make housing affordable, but I left with the impression that they plan to build market-rate housing. I could be wrong about this, but that's the impression that I got.
Finally, Gwen Calhoun spoke up asking whether the people of Pratt City actually wanted this. Colon stated that they had gone to 27 neighborhood associations, suggesting that residents were involved in this decision-making. My sources tell me that community development merely went to neighborhood associations and showed a RISE propaganda video, hard-hitting participatory work by anyone's measure.
Next, Amthor and Colon presented a resolution for the BLBA to vote on. With almost no debate, Chairman Hill called for a motion on the resolution with the addition that community development had to produce a plan at the next meeting. Why would the BLBA give the ok on 25 properties without first knowing the details of how they were to be disposed? Nonetheless, it passed unanimously. Colon, Amthor, and community development had successfully railroaded the BLBA, an organization without so much as a strategic plan or a vision statement, into approving the agenda of RISE and Bell.
So, where was Bell in all this? The answer is that he was genuinely disinterested. He showed up late, checked his phone, his hair, and his fingernails, cracked a couple of jokes, left for ten minutes, and finally chimed in to quash any debate about community development's resolution. That's what he was there for.
All of this for a plan that, if it creates market-rate housing, is bound to either a) have vacant land or houses for years to come or b) lead to the gentrification of Pratt City, neither of which is acceptable.
I left disgusted, dismayed, and enraged. The complete and utter disrespect for the democratic process not just by individuals, but by supposedly democratic institutions is enough to lose all faith in this city's ability to respect it's people. No one, and I mean no one, trusts the city to do the right thing and that's why there is 20% turnout for municipal elections. What the BLBA does is not nearly as important as respecting the democratic process and rebuilding the trust between this city's leaders and its people. There are those on the board who have the ability to stop this in its tracks- you know who you are. It's going to take some guts and some real leadership, but it's time to take a stand and say "we won't take this in our city anymore. Enough!"
Sunday, August 17, 2014
Food Deserts: Solution or Neoliberal Governance
In response to the recent in kind grant from IBM given to the city, the Birmingham News has created a series on food deserts. In many ways, this looks to be a great series, focusing on voices from the community and from those experiencing hunger. I commend and support this effort to catalog how it feels to be hungry. This is important work. However, I believe there are serious problems with the concept of food deserts that need to be addressed. Some of these problems stem from some conceptual looseness and maybe a bit of laziness in the methodological arena. Other problems are more nefarious.
First, hunger and food insecurity are economic problems and not geographic ones. The editorial board of the Birmingham News seems to understand this and has made it a point to focus on poverty. However, focusing solely on geographic factors would not solve the problem. Low-income people could get to the store, but can't buy high quality groceries. Essentially, the idea of food deserts assumes that proximity to a grocery store is the primary determinant of hunger and obesity. This is clearly untrue.
Second, and more nefarious, food deserts, when used as a planning tool either by government or non-profits, is a form of neoliberal governance. Neoliberal governance is the use of market-based tools to shape the behavior of target populations. I suspect that one of the main conclusions of the IBM consulting will be to use economic incentives to attract grocery stores and to promote farmer's markets and community gardens in areas deemed food deserts, most of which are low income. This is an attempt to change the behavior of the residents in a way that will reduce hunger, but importantly prevent obesity, which have been connected in much of the literature. This is not just an attempt to promote access, but the influence target populations to purchase the right food, which usually means fruits and vegetables. What this means is that the food behaviors of those living in food deserts, low income target populations, have been deemed aberrant, and that it is basically a matter of individual choice as to whether target populations will become less hungry and less obese. In essence, a food desert is a constructed space of aberrant behavior that needs to be repaired through market processes. I ask you, do we really have any business telling poor folks how and what to eat? For more on these click here.
Finally, food deserts depoliticize problems in low income communities rendering them legible to technical, apolitical solutions. Conditions in food desert communities are not natural, but the result of years of racial and economic segregation. Food deserts have been redlined by supermarkets because the populations of those areas are not wealthy enough to produce a profit. Supermarkets in those areas often charge more for the same product than in wealthy neighborhoods. Instead of talking about access sans income increases, we need to be talking about the deeply rooted and long-standing processes of racial and economic segregation that created these conditions in the first place.
I want to suggest that community development through an agricultural economy is an alternative to the food desert concept. What food desert communities need is not more grocery stores or farmer's markets or community gardens. What they need is more money, plain and simple. By utilizing technologies like aquaponics, an agricultural economy can be built in low income areas. Aquaponics is highly productive, producing approximately 140,000 heads of lettuce and 12,000 pounds of whole fish a year on about a quarter acre. Combine this with a cooperative form of firm organization, and community members can use neoliberalism to their advantage instead of detriment. Increased incomes make neighborhoods more attractive to grocery stores that are selling the food produced in the neighborhood. It's a virtuous cycle.
I hope that those considering solutions to food deserts consider thinking about it in a different way and consider working from the bottom up instead of the top down.
First, hunger and food insecurity are economic problems and not geographic ones. The editorial board of the Birmingham News seems to understand this and has made it a point to focus on poverty. However, focusing solely on geographic factors would not solve the problem. Low-income people could get to the store, but can't buy high quality groceries. Essentially, the idea of food deserts assumes that proximity to a grocery store is the primary determinant of hunger and obesity. This is clearly untrue.
Second, and more nefarious, food deserts, when used as a planning tool either by government or non-profits, is a form of neoliberal governance. Neoliberal governance is the use of market-based tools to shape the behavior of target populations. I suspect that one of the main conclusions of the IBM consulting will be to use economic incentives to attract grocery stores and to promote farmer's markets and community gardens in areas deemed food deserts, most of which are low income. This is an attempt to change the behavior of the residents in a way that will reduce hunger, but importantly prevent obesity, which have been connected in much of the literature. This is not just an attempt to promote access, but the influence target populations to purchase the right food, which usually means fruits and vegetables. What this means is that the food behaviors of those living in food deserts, low income target populations, have been deemed aberrant, and that it is basically a matter of individual choice as to whether target populations will become less hungry and less obese. In essence, a food desert is a constructed space of aberrant behavior that needs to be repaired through market processes. I ask you, do we really have any business telling poor folks how and what to eat? For more on these click here.
Finally, food deserts depoliticize problems in low income communities rendering them legible to technical, apolitical solutions. Conditions in food desert communities are not natural, but the result of years of racial and economic segregation. Food deserts have been redlined by supermarkets because the populations of those areas are not wealthy enough to produce a profit. Supermarkets in those areas often charge more for the same product than in wealthy neighborhoods. Instead of talking about access sans income increases, we need to be talking about the deeply rooted and long-standing processes of racial and economic segregation that created these conditions in the first place.
I want to suggest that community development through an agricultural economy is an alternative to the food desert concept. What food desert communities need is not more grocery stores or farmer's markets or community gardens. What they need is more money, plain and simple. By utilizing technologies like aquaponics, an agricultural economy can be built in low income areas. Aquaponics is highly productive, producing approximately 140,000 heads of lettuce and 12,000 pounds of whole fish a year on about a quarter acre. Combine this with a cooperative form of firm organization, and community members can use neoliberalism to their advantage instead of detriment. Increased incomes make neighborhoods more attractive to grocery stores that are selling the food produced in the neighborhood. It's a virtuous cycle.
I hope that those considering solutions to food deserts consider thinking about it in a different way and consider working from the bottom up instead of the top down.
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
The End is Nigh...
On the Subject of My Behavior
I admit that my behavior during the debates of the past year has not been at the level of a seasoned public intellectual. I have personally insulted people. I have not listened to arguments. I have been unwilling to compromise. For some of these, I apologize. But, let me say this; I have not been the only one with bad behavior during these debates. As an example, DB Irwin read the first chapter of my dissertation and called it, "poorly-cited, jargon-filled, piece of self-hating crap." My education has be insulted numerous times by numerous different people. Imagine the cognitive dissonance when a city that purports to be for home-grown people, innovation, and new ideas, turns those into an insult. Nonetheless, the debate was acrimonious and unfair to both sides. I accept my responsibility for my part in that. I do not apologize for criticizing people who gave interviews to newspapers or wrote public articles. You put yourself in public, and you opened yourself to criticism. Don't take yourself so seriously.
On the Subject of My Topic
My agitation for the past year plus has been simple - to educate the public about the existence of hierarchies, particularly white supremacy and capitalism. To do this, I used the tools of white privilege and gentrification. The gentrification debate has more or less been universally accepted by even the most recalcitrant people. However, whites refuse to accept even on the most basic level that the world is hierarchically organized based on race, in spite of the fact that numerous examples of peer-reviewed evidence exists. This, unfortunately, confirms what most people of color say - that whites are unable to change. Again, this is not a complex concept. The world is hierarchically organized based on race. This is clearly delineated by numerous anecdotal and scientific facts. It is not even radical or revolutionary in even the most minor ways. It is simply clearly observable reality.
On the Subject of Saviors
The clear motivation for much of the animosity is that a significant group of Birmingham white people have positioned themselves as saviors of Birmingham. Let me say this clearly and for all to hear; there is nothing to save. Birmingham is not special in any way. It is not worse than any other city. It is not better. There is no more potential here. The politicians are not more corrupt. The whites are not more racist. There is not any more racial animosity in this city than in any other city. There is nothing at all distinct about Birmingham. It is a city like any other city, and its primary purpose is to make money for the bourgeoisie. If you want a city that is different than every other city, then you have to become a revolutionary who doesn't accept hierarchies in any way.
On the Subject of Revolution
We live in revolutionary times. The environment is destroyed. Inequality in this country is greater than it has been in a long time. Democracy is significantly curtailed at all levels of government by the influence of money. Trendy, cool restaurants and parks don't do a damn thing to address these things. The only thing that can address these things is a complete transformation in the way society works. Before we can actually address the root cause, which is economic, we must address the other hierarchies of race, gender, and others. This facilitates solidarity to address the capitalist system which is destroying the planet and impoverishing its people. The situation is dire. Let me say that again, the situation is dire and it requires a radical answer.
The revolution is here. The revolutionaries are here. I am the loudest, but there are more than me, and I meet more on a daily basis. Stop taking yourself so seriously, and fight for a new world.
Peace,
Zac
I admit that my behavior during the debates of the past year has not been at the level of a seasoned public intellectual. I have personally insulted people. I have not listened to arguments. I have been unwilling to compromise. For some of these, I apologize. But, let me say this; I have not been the only one with bad behavior during these debates. As an example, DB Irwin read the first chapter of my dissertation and called it, "poorly-cited, jargon-filled, piece of self-hating crap." My education has be insulted numerous times by numerous different people. Imagine the cognitive dissonance when a city that purports to be for home-grown people, innovation, and new ideas, turns those into an insult. Nonetheless, the debate was acrimonious and unfair to both sides. I accept my responsibility for my part in that. I do not apologize for criticizing people who gave interviews to newspapers or wrote public articles. You put yourself in public, and you opened yourself to criticism. Don't take yourself so seriously.
On the Subject of My Topic
My agitation for the past year plus has been simple - to educate the public about the existence of hierarchies, particularly white supremacy and capitalism. To do this, I used the tools of white privilege and gentrification. The gentrification debate has more or less been universally accepted by even the most recalcitrant people. However, whites refuse to accept even on the most basic level that the world is hierarchically organized based on race, in spite of the fact that numerous examples of peer-reviewed evidence exists. This, unfortunately, confirms what most people of color say - that whites are unable to change. Again, this is not a complex concept. The world is hierarchically organized based on race. This is clearly delineated by numerous anecdotal and scientific facts. It is not even radical or revolutionary in even the most minor ways. It is simply clearly observable reality.
On the Subject of Saviors
The clear motivation for much of the animosity is that a significant group of Birmingham white people have positioned themselves as saviors of Birmingham. Let me say this clearly and for all to hear; there is nothing to save. Birmingham is not special in any way. It is not worse than any other city. It is not better. There is no more potential here. The politicians are not more corrupt. The whites are not more racist. There is not any more racial animosity in this city than in any other city. There is nothing at all distinct about Birmingham. It is a city like any other city, and its primary purpose is to make money for the bourgeoisie. If you want a city that is different than every other city, then you have to become a revolutionary who doesn't accept hierarchies in any way.
On the Subject of Revolution
We live in revolutionary times. The environment is destroyed. Inequality in this country is greater than it has been in a long time. Democracy is significantly curtailed at all levels of government by the influence of money. Trendy, cool restaurants and parks don't do a damn thing to address these things. The only thing that can address these things is a complete transformation in the way society works. Before we can actually address the root cause, which is economic, we must address the other hierarchies of race, gender, and others. This facilitates solidarity to address the capitalist system which is destroying the planet and impoverishing its people. The situation is dire. Let me say that again, the situation is dire and it requires a radical answer.
The revolution is here. The revolutionaries are here. I am the loudest, but there are more than me, and I meet more on a daily basis. Stop taking yourself so seriously, and fight for a new world.
Peace,
Zac
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Response to the Gentrification Series
Over the last six months, Weld for Birmingham has produced a series on gentrification from an oral history standpoint. Overall, the series is good and puts a human face on the changes we are undergoing in Birmingham. No fewer than three of the articles have focused on the Avondale/Crestwood area, which, due to the completeness of downtown gentrification, is ground zero for neighborhood change in Birmingham.
This post looks at Weld's approach to gentrification, points out some blind spots, critiques the response by those promoting gentrification, and provides some data that highlight the downside of neighborhood change.
First, there seems to be little in terms of displacement in census tract 24, home to Avondale and parts of Crestwood. There has been only a 5% change in terms of the demographics in the census tract. However, property values have risen dramatically, to the tune of 61% over the past ten years. This is more than the increase in property values of Homewood and Mountain Brook, but less than the increases in downtown Birmingham. If this trend continues, widespread displacement will be inevitable, particularly of low-income residents. One of the Weld series' largest blind spot is the lack of voices representing low-income renters. They have almost exclusively interviewed privileged white residents. Are low-income residents' rents increasing, are they contemplating moving to a cheaper zip code, and are landlords attempting to push them out?
(In fairness, I'm not under any illusion about how difficult it may be to develop the connections necessary to get an interview with renters who may not want to get caught up in a political fight.)
As an artifact of this blind spot, the response to the most recent gentrification series post "Leaving Crestwood" displayed an incredible amount of privilege and entitlement. Posters wrung their hands and navel-gazed about a privileged white resident leaving the community- all of these lamentations coming from other privileged whites.
In an earlier article by Nick Patterson, "New Students, New Parents, New Reality, and Change," the author documented how white residents make decisions about school choice. Tellingly, the residents highlighted in the article consulted other whites when deciding about which schools their children should attend. (The Bigas stated that they changed their mind after consulting with Reverend Brandon Harris, a white man.)
Does this really look like integration, a situation in which white residents' community looks not unlike the community that s/he would have in Homewood or Mountain Brook? Maybe this is untrue, but the articles, with a dramatic lack of black protagonists, portray a lily-white community within a larger black neighborhood. The articles give the distinct impression that gentrification and neighborhood change are driven by a small cadre of privileged, white advocates of a type of economic development that can best be termed municipal trickle-down economics.
I'm quite pleased with the gentrification series from Weld, and this critique is just an attempt to make it better. The series has spurred conversation in Birmingham that otherwise never would have happened. However, there are blind spots that need to be addressed in future articles in the series, and the number one blind spot is "are there people experiencing displacement pressures?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)