During the first half of the 20th century, African Americans who were confined to ghettos developed their own communities. Often this was due to the fact that they could not afford to live in other places. Also, many immigrants from Caribbean countries were moving to the United States during this time, and they all settled near one another. They brought their families over when they could, which also contributed to the strong sense of community in these neighborhoods. However, during the latter half of the century, these ghettos were destroyed as part of an urban renewal strategy. Urban renewal began as a strategy for planed shrinkage, which caused massive displacement of African Americans. It also caused tensions with new people moving into the area. Even though the areas were newly renovated, the middle-class people moving in still felt out of place at first. The tensions between the displaced people and the middle-class people did not stop more urban renewal from occurring. Urban renewal did not begin with maleficent intent.It started as a program to clear large “slum” areas for modern development in order to attract middle income residents. However good the intention of this was, in practice it did much harm. While it did bring higher income families to the area, it displaced many people and destroyed neighborhoods. Communities were disbanded, and the neighborhoods that took their place were shadows of what they were when lower income people lived there. While it may be necessary to renew neighborhoods, more consideration for the people already living in the neighborhoods should be considered. Otherwise, more harm than good will come out of replacing pre-existing communities in an attempt to renew the neighborhood.

Discussion Question: Why did urban renewal continue to occur even after the negative effects were observed?

In “Root Shock: the Consequences of African American Dispossession,” Mindy T. Fullilove discusses the upheaval of the natural progression of African American communities due to Urban Renewal. Fullilove describes how African American communities evolved in urban centers. Though they lived in ghettoes, an “urban village” developed, leading to social and cultural awakenings like the Harlem Renaissance. However, with the birth of Urban Renewal, these communities were disrupted from the natural path towards community independence and upward mobility.

Supporters of Urban Renewal claimed it would “clear the slum” to make way for modern development. Residents were cleared out of the ghetto, and the land was sold to private developers. Though Urban Renewal was meant to unify and beautify cities, the development strengthened segregation with the development of “the projects” and led to poverty conditions, stress, and illness in the segregated, overcrowded developments.

Fullilove illustrates the shortcomings of urban renewal with the example of Roanoke, Virginia, a city formerly home to two thriving African American communities. The preexisting community setting was disrupted due to the lack of aesthetic appeal of the slum. Residents of the communities-primarily African Americans-were told the changes were for their benefit; however, most of the residents were unable to afford the newly-built housing in their former home and were unable to return, leaving the community scattered. As one resident said, “We used to have a community…now it’s just buildings.”

In addition to the loss of communities and the cultures they upheld, urban renewal led to a paranoia in the displaced persons, leading to individuals who have a strong distrust of the government. We cannot blame them for their paranoia; as Fullilove explains, how can they trust a government that claims to be “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” when in fact it favors the development of one ethnic or cultural group over another?

History is written by the victor. When the weaker parties are given voices, they cause us to ask: is progress ethical if it is achieved at the expense of another group? Would African American communities have developed more-or more rapidly-without legislation like the Urban Renewal Act?

“Root Shock: The Consequences of African American Dispossession” by Mindy Thompson Fullilove is an article that brought up topics I discussed in my previous anthropology and sociology classes. I have read numerous texts about how African Americans today are still confined to ghettos although the United States has been desegregated years ago. It was interesting that the article highlighted the new urban ghettos, in which African American culture flourished, especially with the Harlem Renaissance. However, in 1949, the Urban Renewal Act was enacted, and the plan was to clear out slums by selling the land to private developers in order to attract people who had more money. This led to the dispossession of many African American communities. When a specific race or class of people are targeted and indirectly forced to migrate elsewhere, the communities that replace certainly shape the future of New York City. The city and the nation, in general, were built on the foundation of democracy and the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, forcing the lower class and minority class to relocate does not reflect democracy.

The urban renewal projects aimed at attracting middle class individuals while pushing out the poor reflect how economics and class distinctions shape the future of the city. Since cities resemble big business and capitalism, a wealthy businessman or politician may believe that a city can only continue to grow if the city dwellers are able to compete in the job market. In other words, a misconception may be that the poor do not belong in a city; therefore, it is right to get rid of slums and disregard providing affordable housing and welfare to people. The issue is that this results in an oversight of the lower class. Perhaps, a person living in poverty has the potential to contribute to the growth of the city by obtaining a high-wage job, but he/ she does not have the opportunity to attend college. These are real problems that individuals continue to face in America today. There is great debate about whether a government should provide welfare to level out the playing field for the less fortunate or if those people should only rely on their own hard work to achieve success in society.

Relocation of less wealthy African Americans through urban renewal projects also disregards the lives of those people and their history of living in a specific neighborhood. For example, the article mentioned how two communities in Roanoke, Virginia were subject to dispossession after a federal urban renewal program was set into action. Those two communities were very tight-knit, and they had been living in the same location for generations. Therefore, the urban renewal project was devastating to their culture since they were forced to leave behind the shops, religious institutions, and houses that were familiar to them. White people also avoided the neighborhoods that African Americans would live in. In today’s world, the segregation may not be as dramatic as it was in the 20^th century, but it shaped the society we have now. This means that urban renewal projects will continue to shape the future of how divided neighborhoods are, in terms of ethnicity and class.

In “From Dislocation to Resistance: The Roots of Community Planning,” a chapter from Tom Angotti’s book, the historical moments in which African Americans expressed their anger for being excluded within cities are highlighted. The ongoing feud between wealthy white Americans, who want to limit the amount of affordable housing in cities, and African American and immigrants, who refuse to be displaced by urban renewal projects, continues to shape the city we live in to this day. We can say that the city has a problem when affordable buildings are torn down, and the inhabitants stand in front of the bulldozers that are knocking their homes down. These acts of resistance shape federal policy as well as the social atmosphere, which will have a lasting impact on the future of the city.

Discussion questions: Are urban renewal projects doing more harm than good when they cause an entire group of people to relocate? How can social stigma against the lower class and minority groups be eliminated? Is it even possible to change the stereotypes that have developed in society against distinct ethnicities and classes of people?

The Root Shock article was a really great explanation of the consequences of the urban renewal projects in the second half of the 20th century. I was especially interested by the connection that was pointed out between being removed from a stable living situation and experiencing homelessness later in life. There’s public resistence to the idea of ‘just giving’ homes to the homeless, but if you look at it from the perspective of all the ways that the government has prevented some groups of people from accessing housing, maybe rehousing programs could almost be seen as reparations.