The article,“Root Shock: The Consequences of African American Dispossession” by Mindy Thompson Fullilove, discusses the short and long term consequences, especially the displacement of many African-American communities, lead by urban renewal projects during the 1950s. It is interesting how Fullilove highlights the growth of urban ghettos and describes the vital communities. Although African Americans were confined to ghetto areas due to segregation, most of these communities began to flourish in culture, recreation, and education (Harlem Renaissance). Residents considered their communities filled with vitality. However, the Urban Renewal Act of 1949 was a program that set the stage for deconstruction of ghetto communities. Its interesting how the progress/expansion for the country and its people, specifically rich, was at the expense of a specific group or poor community. Jacob’s “sparrow principle” describes this aptly in opposition to urban renewal approach. “We would not turn into predatory animals for purpose of some grand planning or somebody’s favor.” This inequality of class continues to reflect that we still have today. I found the statistics quite startling, the article states that in 1961, African Americans consisted of 10% of the US population, however, more than half of the residents lived in areas that were part of the urban renewal project. This process of urban renewal strengthened segregation and led to hardship for the families that were displaced due to no vacant housing. The ideals and foundation of the nation represent democracy, however, targeting a specific group or low class for displacement for the sheer purpose of progress is not upholding to these ideals of a democratic nation.
Urban renewal not only lead to to relocation of people, but also gave a disadvantage to them in terms of access to resources such as education. The opportunity of attending a college. This is illustrated in the example of the urban renewal process in Roanoke, Virginia in the article. Prior to urban renewal in that city, the community was a close, knit community and the residents were quite satisfied both financially and socially. However, false hopes and ideas about improved, renewed communities about the program led to a scattered community that was once a tight-knit community. There was strong community opposition to slow this urban renewal process, however, this could lead to stop the program. Mary Bishop, who documented the story of urban renewal in this city, reported that the people displaced incurred financial loss and some were in heavy debt due to additional payments they had to make after being displaced. Asides from financial costs, the tight-knit community was scattered; social and moral support was removed along with the urban renewal process. Social networks are key for the growth of communities and with urban renewal in this city those networks disrupted.
I really found interesting how throughout these urban renewal projects people are opposing and fighting for their rights. The story of David Jenkins visit to Elmwood illustrates this in the article. Delores Rubillo, his neighbor, refused to move from Elmwood during the urban renewal process, which griefs David for the fact that if he had showed that tenacity perhaps he would still be living in his neighborhood. This opposition could provide hope for the betterment of such communities and for many not to be displaced. Fullilove further discusses the long-term consequences and ethical issues that arise from the urban renewal process. After urban renewal, African American communities became weaker and more affected by negative forces such as crime.
Discussion Questions: Is there a solution in which urban renewal is not done at the expense of a minority group or low class? Is it possible to manage the process of urban renewal/ progress under the ideals of a democratic nation?
