As Fullilove continues to talk about the urban renewal projects that destroyed places like Roanoke, Virginia, I can’t stop thinking of these people. As if their lives weren’t bad enough to begin with, (they were of low status economically and lived in slums that were eventually deemed “blighted”) they only became worse. These individuals didn’t have much to begin with, yet they lost it anyway. It is amazing how society often makes a fuss over situations when well-off families and neighborhoods lose everything they have, (in a tragedy, disaster,etc.) yet when the poor lose their homes, cultures, and overall sense of identity, it is alright because it is “for the good of the city.” The comment that councilwoman Mary Pickett made a few pages into Chapter 4 especially stood out to me. It ended with, “some people had to suffer.” Basically, what I got out of that was that the individuals living in neighborhoods that underwent urban renewal (African Americans in this case) were in some way the sacrificial lamb. But why was this the path that was taken? If the goal of urban renewal had to do with fixing the land and neighborhoods themselves, why couldn’t they do so in such a way that displacement and root shock would not occur? Or, if displacement and root shock were inevitable, why couldn’t they provide more immediate support to the communities? If they couldn’t provide homes from everyone, the least that could have been done was to provide individuals who may be experiencing stress or trauma with some kind of psychological help, such as counseling.