And yeah, the concept is simple: a primarily white middle and upper-class with the power and privilege to *choose* where they live invade and then wholly occupy a region that was once predominately poor and working-class (usually) people of color without the power and privilege to *choose* where they live — folks who don’t have the power to successfully resist being pushed out of the neighborhoods in which their ancestors resided.

What is there to debate about that?

Why is it so difficult for so many middle and upper-class white folks to simply accept their complicity — both voluntary and involuntary — in the oppression of others? Right… their indulgences must be guilt-free… see, hear, nor speak evil…

What’s interesting about gentrification is that it always starts, as you and some of your commentators point out, with the “slummers” — middle & upper-class white folks in search of illegal leisure activities and/or the “exotic,” which (they perceive) people of color of being so good at providing. These poor neighborhoods of color were, in a sense, created by middle and upper class whites who demanded segregation — a safe haven (i.e., suburb) in which to raise their children free of the vices they believe proliferate neighborhoods of color. So, the neighborhoods in which poor, law-abiding people of color live become sites for illegal gambling venues and prostitution (for example) because these poor folks do not have the power to stop these vice institutions from taking root and thriving in their neighborhoods.

Middle and upper-class white folks take the meaning of “don’t shit where you eat” to heart when they leave their comfortable homes in the suburbs, albeit temporarily, to consume cheap, available and illegal sex, drugs — whatever their hearts desire — and once they’ve satiated their various appetites, they return to their homes… homes situated in what mainstream media tells us are morally pristine communities.

White “tourists” create these poor neighborhoods of color and white gentrifiers demolish them to establish permanent playgrounds.

Gentrification is not right.

Anyway, in a class last semester, we learned about a few concepts that white christian europeans used when justifying colonialism starting in the 15th century. One is Terra Nullius, the idea that colonized lands are “no man’s lands.” Because the people are not Christian, they are not people. In addition, there was the idea of the ne plus ultra, or a point beyond which Christian peoples did not go past because it was considered too dangerous. I think both of these concepts can be directly applied, like what you’re talking about. When there is an “economically depressed,” largely black/brown neighborhood, I think white people tend to consider them to actually have no people there, as evidenced by such comments as, “Oh nobody lives there,” or “that’s a pocket of poverty.” Also, there are many ne plus ultras. Living on the Upper East Side, it was up around 96th street. “Oh there’s nothing up there,” or it’s SUPER dangerous past 96th street.

Let’s remember that these neighborhoods now being “colonized” by whites were probably occupied by whites as recently as 60 years ago. Then came WWII, and the resulting migration of Southern blacks to the industrial North. The 1950’s and the growth of suburbs, resulted in urban ethnic whites leaving the cities in high numbers–a phenomenon now known as white flight. The consequences of white flight were tremendous–cities lost their much of their property tax bases, their populations declined, and their middle classes were decimated. Crime increased, main streets were boarded up, and blacks were increasingly left in segregated urban ghettos.

In the past few decades, an increasing percentage of black Americans are joining the middle class, and many are moving to the suburbs. This is good. Also, many whites are moving back to the cities, which is reducing crime, increasing the tax bases, and creating economic activity in urban areas. Admittedly, these whites moving in are likely to be what you call “postmodern hipsters” and not families with children. That’s the next step. But let’s take what we can get.

Undeniably, we have further to go. Far too many blacks stil live in poor, high-crime, segregated neighborhoods, and far too many whites live segregated from people of other backgrounds. But the gentrification of the cities and the diversification of suburbs are part of the solution–not the problem.

What I struggle with, is how I as a white middle class male can fight the system that is causing gentrification.

The South End of Boston has been gentrified for years, and the costs only keep going up. Most of the people of color left live in subsidised housing, and the war on drugs coupled witht he lack of jobs for youth is increasing the level of violence, and muggings in the neighborhood.

Now as a young person who grew up on a mountain in an all whtie area that moved to Boston to go to college I had no idea about any of these issues.

I think what we need to start doing, is less complaining and more problem solving, and ideas about solutions.

Some of the things I do are:
a. talk about racism and gentrification openly and honestly
b. work for and volunteer for solidly progressive/anti-racist non-profits
c. visit the neighborhood markets, laundromats, etc. that are run by people of color who have lived in the neighborhood for a long time
d. speak up about affordable housing issues, write letters, attending neighborhood meetings, etc.
c. educate myself about socialism

In Boston, unfortunately, if you are young, middle class, and white- it doesn’t matter what neighborhood you move into - you are either helping to gentrify it or it has been gentrified… So, I’d like to spark a discussion about what white anti-racist allies can do to help stop gentrification other than just not moving into neighorhoods that are mostly populated by people of color.