Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

VersaceEauFraiche t1_j9ggdpf wrote

The article states that "Since the 1960s, gentrification has become ubiquitous" and that "So often, it’s not just rich people moving in – it’s rich White people".

I looked up the historical demographic breakdown of San Francisco: in 1960, it was 72.7% White and in 2020 it is 39.1%. The historical demography of most American cities follow this same pattern. "Non-Hispanic Whites made up 59% of the residents of Chicago in 1970, falling to just 31.7% in 2010". In Atlanta, Whites made up 48.4% of the population in 1970, 31% in 1990, and has risen to only to 38.4% in 2010. A few examples among many.

The author stating that Gentrification started in 1960 leads the reader to believe that there was massive influx of rich White people moving into these historically non-white urban centers but the exact opposite happened in the 1960s and 70s. Of course, as we all know this as White Flight. The author would be correct in stating that "Since the 1960s, gentrification has become ubiquitous" if they were to include non-Whites moving into White areas, but it is quite obvious that they would not assert such a thing. That is not how we colloquially used the word Gentrification. But this means the original assertion is factually incorrect. So why would they say such a thing?

It is done so to make the history of these events appear to cohere seamlessly with ideological priors, to make it easier to digest, to imbue passion within the reader to call for change. But history is a messy, fractal thing. By limiting ourselves to only a portion of history as to cohere seamlessly with our ideological priors we limit our understanding of such things. We must expand our understanding of such things as to craft better policy. This is philosophy subreddit after all, we have a love of wisdom.

In particular situations, such as the expansion of the tech sector in San Francisco, you have settled communities experienced a sort of widescale economic eviction. A rising tide is supposed to lift all boats but these peoples find themselves drowning under the waters of high rent. But it would be dishonest and unhelpful to place the blame solely on "rich White people" - the tech industry is very diverse and full of different nationalities. These are the people who are moving into these communities. The same kind of historical argument used on White people in these regards to gentrification doesn't work against Indian or East Asian software developers. This is a point to ponder, that needs to be addressed.

One could advocate for the continued expansion of public housing, demanding cheaper rent, asking for more funding for better public transportation all on their own virtues without having to consult with "History". I support all of these policies. I understand, zoning laws and tax brackets are technical issues and don't drive political action quite like ethnic revanchism.

167

[deleted] t1_j9jeiqr wrote

You've erected a straw man in focusing on the word "white". Sure, it was flashy and the author uses it to make a point that the class divide is often along racial lines. And I agree with you that sometimes it's not white but Asian or Indian or whatever that is doing the gentrifying.

Two things: One, maybe the author used "white" as an example because for this particular neighborhood it's accurate? And two, maybe the author intentionally decided to use "white" to avoid words like "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat" in order to not sound too Marxist?

Anyway, race is clearly not the point of the article. If you want to attack it then be honest in your attack. Attack the main point and not the racial angle it uses sparingly.

−21

VersaceEauFraiche t1_j9jkxhu wrote

"So often, it’s not just rich people moving in – it’s rich white people" is one of the 3 subheadings that is bold and in red. It stands out more than the text around it. This is done intentionally. Clearly the author places emphasis on this. I am treating their words with the same level of sincerity, seriousness, and thoroughness that they themselves are treating their own words. I quoted the author directly on their assertions and showed that the factual basis for their assertions were demonstrably false. Am I to ignore the words inside the article and instead criticize what the author was trying to say? How am I not being honest by contending directly with the words the author uses?

"...the deleterious consequences of both for race- and class-oppression" is a line in the concluding paragraph. Race and Class are treated rather equally in the article: the word "class" appears 5 times, "White" appears 3 times, "race" appears 1 time. This 5-4 ratio shows that the mentioning of Whites/race isn't some errant tangent. This is what the author believes, this what the author wrote, and this is what I am criticizing.

16

[deleted] t1_j9jzl13 wrote

Okay you're right, the author got the bit about race incorrect because it only applies to that one neighborhood so we should throw out all the other thoughts in that article?

1

VersaceEauFraiche t1_j9k0k48 wrote

You don't have to speak in hyperbole, no one is demanding that of you.

The author made some broad, sweeping statements that were easily shown to be false. If that is the case, what could be some other things that the author might have fudged for the sake of their argument?

Again, the author could have simply made the case for X or Y or Z policies on their own merit but they wanted to add some gusto behind the argument. This means including rectifying racial injustice as a part of their raison d'être. But getting some of the foundational aspects of your argument incorrect feels like the author was putting the cart before the horse.

Honestly articles like this are fairly boilerplate, dime a dozen. Academics love to churn this stuff out. A more interesting point of contention would be analyzing the intersection between the Big Tech, diverse workforces who work in Tech, the progressive ideology that these workers overwhelmingly endorse (such as being anti-gentrification), and actually gentrifying such places. Trying to manage and balance a diverse political coalition that is easily prone to in-fighting and whose material interests often come at the expense of other members in the group would be an interesting dynamic to analyze. But no one believes that they are the ones carrying out such societal ills, these workers probably think that they aren't gentrifying even though they are (maybe because they read articles like this and believe that its only gentrification when/if you're White).

2

[deleted] t1_j9k0uh5 wrote

>The author made some broad, sweeping statements that were easily shown to be false. If that is the case, what could be some other things that the author might have fudged for the sake of their argument?

Some of what the author said applies only to one specific neighborhood. In other neighborhoods, it doesn't apply.

So you'll attack the claim that whites are doing all the gentrification.

But that's not a claim that he made. Did he? I only see mention of this specific neighborhood with regards to race. And it's not even the important part of the article to my eye.

Is this not the very definition of attacking a straw man?

Edit: Also, it wasn't hyperbole, it was sarcasm, right?

1

VersaceEauFraiche t1_j9k2mjj wrote

"Unmentioned by Glass, though, is the 𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐬, especially in the US context. So often, it’s not just rich people moving in – it’s 𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞. When that happens, 𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 inflects and compounds the power of capital."

This is the author's words that he wrote himself. He is placing emphasis on race himself. I am referencing the words that the author wrote.

You simply want it to not be an issue when the author brought it up as an issue. You say it is not even the important part of the article, despite the author repeatedly mentioning it. You are trying to convince me to not see the words in the article that the author wrote. You accuse me of attacking a strawman when I seek to discuss the author's exact words. Speaking of straws, I think you're grasping at them.

There is noting else that can be said on this topic.

1

Wireleast t1_j9jkyfa wrote

It’s literally one of the lead in assertions and factually incorrect.

7