New Orleans remains a war-zone in the southeast of the US, now a one sided battle between the poor and HUD, a slow-motion sequel to the poor v. nature battle broadcast worldwide in 2005. But, as with all battles, a head on attack may not be the best course of action.
Some activists have responded to proposed HUD-led demolition by simply opposing demolition as bad in every case – they are of the opinion that the housing was just fine thank you, and that demolition should be halted. Despite the fact that HUD and the government of NO have consistently ignored the voices of some activists, mere opposition to demolition does disservice to the interests of people fighting for equitable housing.
Radicalism conflates itself with conservatism when it merely defends communities from change. Before cities gentrified they were segregated; defending racial boundaries against the contagion of gentrification reinforces socially conservative notions of natural community identity. What came before should shape what came before. In the instance of New Orleans, the legacy of a segregated city, where resident’s voices were ignored with equal violence as in today’s conflict, means that radical transformation should take advantage of the momentum generated by the storm, in the same way that the business community has taken advantage of the storm to generate their own vision of a new New Orleans. Essentially, anti-gentrification movements should focus on movement rather than stability, building stronger communities when economic or political change force themselves upon a community. Defense of the status quo not only makes little sense ideologically, it makes less sense strategically – the energies devoted to stopping demolition of segregated housing could be put towards recreating better communities through collectivization of childcare and food production in new communities, as steps towards a more self-determined future for the impoverished people of New Orleans.
No comments:
Post a Comment