When settlers came to the new world it was called a “discovery”, implying that this was the first time humans were to have set foot on this land, it was seen as an opportunity to “develop” a new, civilized world — this was 500 years ago, and these same concepts are relevant today in the gentrification of urban areas. Displacement of indigenous people, people of color, and other considered “minority groups” has been a long standing tradition deeply engrained in the foundation of American culture. The same spaces and same peoples are being forced out of their homes and taken advantage of so that they are coerced into a sort of “cooperation” with the government. The structure of settler colonialism, that Patrick Wolfe coined and defined, remains active in current discourse and action within gentrification. Land, property rights and homes have been at the center of the disputes and traumas of colonization and now gentrification of these areas. The state and upper classes control the dissemination of information and are able to be manipulative in their words and take advantage of literacy/language barriers that is exacerbated by promises of opportunity and coercing people into unknowingly supporting the means of their own oppression. The colonization of New York City in the 1600s and the now gentrification of urban areas such as, Brooklyn, mirror each other and the idea of settler colonialism, specifically in terms of the recent disputes regarding affordable housing units and the announcement of the establishment of the Amazon Campus in Queens.
First Encounter with Europeans
In the early 1600s Dutch settlers arrived in New York and quickly encountered the Lenape tribe, later known to be the Delaware Indians. Initially, the relationship was essentially cordial and the Lenape cleared off pieces of good quality land for the Dutch to use. However, the Dutch were still seen as a “formidable threat” they were evidently greedy, determined, and ethnocentric and as early as 1620 they had already established Fort Orange, in the Hudson River Valley through the Dutch West Indian Company. These establishments signaled they were there to stay, were interested in commerce and development, as well as having a militant presence. In the Lenape’s first encounter with European settlers, they were under the impression they were granting land privileges so that the settlers could farm, and perhaps build homes, however, the Europeans assumed control of the plots and viewed the land as their own “static possession”, this concept outside of collective ownership and collective tending was outside the norm in the Lenape culture. In 1664, the Dutch surrendered to the English when they arrived, however remained in the colony on “generous terms”. Soon after the English’s arrival, King Charles II appointed his brother the Duke of York, who renamed the colony “New York”. These areas being established as “new” and the following name affirmed that the settlers saw this land as new and untouched, not with established civilizations and communities residing on it, as well as claiming ownership by attaching their name to it. Soon after, the Duke became King James and proclaimed New York a “royal colony” and immigration from New England, Britain, France skyrocketed from 9,000 persons in 1664 to 20,000 in 1700 and with that wealth and governmental supported was rewarded and encouraged through land grants from the government to Dutch and English political supporters. This led to a monopolization to the land, that was previously in collective control, under the Lenape and Iroquoian tribe, and by 1703 the 1.75 million acres in the Hudson River Valley was owned by only 5 families, who decided to build manors and allow tenants who to reside in them and pay rent. With the destruction and violence toward the Lenape and surrounding tribes at an all time high, the government encouraged retaliation if there was any mere threat from an indigenous person, causing bloodshed, procuring a response from the Lenape people, “‘Why’ they complained, ‘did you villainously massacre your own blood?’ —referring to the mixed-race children who had been born…their aggression continued.” The Europeans were able to create an illusion of a trusting, mutual beneficial relationship, when in reality they exploited the goods and services offered. Indigenous people are often portrayed in history as helpless and confused, primitive peoples, that attempted to fight gunfire with spears, are confused by treaties/documents, and could be easily swindled into an unfair trade with Europeans. However, even before European infiltration the Lenape dominated the fur trade within the area of surrounding tribes, indicating New York City’s transcendent position as an advanced financial commerce center, without any European system or influence, later this is more conclusively affirmed because upon the interference of the Europeans, the over-trapping and aggressive demands from the Europeans depleted the supply of pelts, causing the Europeans to go elsewhere for fur. Thus the Europeans at first seemed as though they could bring new goods and assist in the economy, but ended up exhausting resources and leaving the tribe without something they had developed a reliance on. In this region specifically, this was the beginning, of the displacement of people, the exploitation of a culture, and dismantlement of a structured society.
Urbanization, Authenticity and “Pan-Indianness”
Around a century later, New York city has become a booming metropolis with urbanization rampant through the city. The idea of the “American Indian” is seemingly lost, because of the modernization of New York, because of the belief that “urban” and “Indian” cannot coexist. White people continue to tell people of color and other cultures, specifically native Americans how to be and represent their culture. Social welfare programs start to be put into place specifically for the “American Indian Community”. In 1979, The American Indian Community House was founded in New York City and within its first year in operation, around 1500 people visited for health care services and four years later another facility that housed an X-Ray and Lab services was built. The centers went beyond just health care and illness, they also reached the social aspect that, apparently, people that either identified as having tribe membership or as descendants, could come together and be “authentically” themselves. The centers became a source of traditional expression and involvement in culture for the urban Indian, these establishments helped create a pride in “pan-indianness”, called a key practice in Indian Urbanization. Pan-Indianism in cities was a movement intended to retain native traditions while also attempting to participate in social, urban activities that are outside of the traditional realm. This idea essentially means that people of Native American descent are encouraged to hold on to elements of their culture in the spaces that are designed for that, but also it is necessary for them to assimilate and contribute to the society that has continued to enforce a violence on them. The activism and centers were meant to assist people in staying in touch with their culture and traditions, to the extent of their ancestors, N. Scott Momaday, a Kiowa Professor of Literature and Pulitzer Prize Winning author, stated in 1976 that, “One of the principle problems for urban Indians is how to remain Indian; in spite of the various difficulties, they do remain Indian by keeping together through a network of communication, by getting together for kinds of celebrations…the young urban Indian particularly wants to understand himself in traditional terms. That was not true of his father.” It is ironic that these social welfare programs have been put into place to “create community”, when in reality these spaces are being designated by white people where it is acceptable to perform being, authentically, and traditionally Native American. Additionally, the word, “Pan-Indian” groups together all different tribes that are forced into a conglomerate identity, when obviously, different tribes have different languages, practices, and traditions. An “urban-oriented”, “pan-indian” culture further separates and creates the notion that “Indian”, “Native American” or “Indigenous” is something of the past and can only exist in a pre-colonial context. There is a clear double-standard forced upon Native Americans, in that they coerced into assimilation, but also are coded as past beings so they are not acceptable in a modern context and also they are not viable subjects to demand repercussions or welfare for what was stolen from them. Tradition is only coded as positive when it is traditions of white supremacy, ethnocentrism, exclusion, and racism, however traditions of other groups, especially of color, should be separate, left in the past, or erased according to contemporary rhetoric.
“Then” and “Now” in Brooklyn
Brooklyn has gone through extreme economic changes and housed people from a variety of demographics. The idea of “change” and “progress” being good and keeping up with industrialization and the demands that came along with it, was essential for places to thrive and be desirable for residents and business owners to want to live there. When referring to Brooklyn’s history there is a time period known to be the “Bad Old Days”, as the borough barely survived the Great Depression and suddenly prospered during World War II. The 1950s became the peak for Brooklyn, in terms of having an international and domestic presence as an industrial center and attracting people to reside there, it became an appealing location to build a life. Brooklyn was truly at its peak in the 50s, but this bliss did not last long as the decline of the area began and then accelerated at a great speed, and officially plummeted in 1957, after the closing of the Brooklyn Eagle and with the Brooklyn Dodgers, just two years after winning the world series, moving to Los Angeles; City morale was extremely low and the disinvestment and deindustrialization had begun and the middle, working class officially diminished with the closing of the Brooklyn Navy Yard that housed many well paying jobs. Additionally, the US Army Terminal in both, Bay Ridge and Sunset Park closing, this was tens of thousands of jobs gone, leading to lower wages in surrounding industries, increased unemployment, heightened crime, and the fleeing of the middle class for around a decade. Brooklyn’s demographic then switched from a middle, working, class in an thriving industrialized area to an area that attracted low income families and people, specifically minorities, the city attempted to make changes in order to force out minority groups and save the neighborhood money, "Beame’s Housing and Development Admin., Robert Starr, suggested rather than cut city wide services, a ‘planned shrinkage’ policy be implemented. The neighborhoods to be cut off from the city services to save money were populated primarily by non-whites…in Brooklyn”, people began associated and blaming poverty on the presence of minority groups, Joseph P. Fried, in 1976, deemed that in Brooklyn neighborhoods all the neglected and abandoned urban areas, correlated strongly with the high rate of minority groups moving into the areas. Urban renewal and Brooklyn revival programs tended to be geared toward the removal of black people, calling it “Negro Removal” and attributed to the motion of racial rezoning that has attacked cities that are targeted as needing rejuvenation. This was the first sign of “community organizers”, which were in charge of implementing strategies of organization and communicate with locals regarding their reasons for resistance and promotion of certain changes, however, these organizers were in reality put in place to endorse locals on their say in who would “be their neighbor” and control who and what demographic they wanted to be a part of their community. The “Bad Old Days” and the ultimate demand for renewal came from the area being dominated by minority groups, specifically African Americans, and people began to associate the area as crime ridden and impoverished due to the presence of people of color, immigrants, and other under represented peoples, when in reality the reason the city had been accessed by these groups that they continue to spurn was because of the abandonment and disinterest in the success of the city, by white people, of the upper middle class. Because Brooklyn became a place that was home to elderly, poor, working class, immigrants, and people of color, it was seen as a location that needed to undergo “rehabilitation” and areas with this label, of needing revival became a fashionable and attractive label, as people saw it as something they could erase and start over, curating an area to the desires of white, upper/middle class people and appropriate cultures as fashion trends. The National Urban Coalition found in a “…study of forty-four cities showed that over half of the rehabilitated neighborhoods had higher minority populations before rehabilitation began.” The “Now” of Brooklyn is in reference to “post-rehabilitation” or the immense displacement of people. Brooklyn is now considered a popular tourist destination and has transcended beyond a reviving of a city, and even has risen to high to call it something as minuscule as a renaissance, but has completely transformed into a up and coming, hipster dominated, millennial dreamland. The new issues found in the borough are the rise in prices of everything, but specifically in housing and the lack of affordable housing, upscale gentrification plagues the streets once full of cultural differences, now are empty spaces that investors compete over for overdeveloped plans. In Lance Freeman’s, There Goes the ‘Hood, he calls gentrification, simply put, white people coming to a place and replacing poorer minority groups, and he uses examples from both Brooklyn and Harlem, he explains the commonality of areas that have been disinvested in to experience gentrification, but certain areas that are known to be hubs of culture and history, are what is most shocking, like Harlem —the hood. Gentrification and race are impossible to separate, as it targets racial minorities and certain groups to force them out, or attempt to erase and replace them. The “Then” of Brooklyn was recoded as a problem with the amount of people of color that were residing in one place, when in fact the poverty that they have been forced into is because of the structures of society and system that has been created setting non-white people up for failure and ironically they are blamed for the violence they endure. However, what is important to acknowledge is that the process of erasure, displacement, and gentrification does not happen overnight, it is met with a fight and even further in some cases can be later refuted by a mixed race reclamation movement, like in Clinton Hill, Brooklyn, “There is always human and political turmoil when a city neighborhood is being retrieved from abandonment and decay and, in this regard, the Clinton Hill section of downtown Brooklyn is no exception. But unlike other minority neighborhoods that have been overrun by middle-income whites in search of affordable housing, Clinton Hill has been propelled into gentrification by an integrated mix of middle-income New Yorkers.” Additionally, at first the ideas of gentrification do not always seem completely negative to the people that will be most dangerously affected by it. There is promise of more opportunities, jobs, low prices, and more access to high quality goods. The attraction of wealthier people to the area could mean more physical improvements to the area in terms of cleanliness and enhanced services, however, what is misunderstood is there can be many negative repercussions. The same people who are forced to leave their homes, could have in fact supported the different elements of gentrification to their neighborhood, because of the manipulation of the elite groups who control the media and the manner it is shared.
Gentrification and The Affordable Housing Crisis
The Brooklyn Anti-Gentrification Network (BAN) is a network of campaigns and protest groups that are against the gentrification of Brooklyn and it is a forum and coalition of groups that are dedicated to maintain a stance against racism, police violence, and gentrification. On their website, there is a list of the groups and campaigns that are a part of the organization and stand in solidarity with their beliefs. They are dedicated to precluding development and preaching the importance of preservation of culture, and the people that have kept Brooklyn above water. One of their focusses is to maintain and ensure that there is affordable housing for all, and this pertains to a current issue that is continued to be fought because of a recent promise by Mayor DeBlasio’s initiative to bring in 300,000 units to low income families in Brooklyn with the help of Deputy Mayor of Housing and Economic Development, Alicia Glen. Within BAN, there is a whole coalition of groups called “Anti-Glen” groups and many protests have been targeted directly at DeBlasio and Glen because of their plans to create more affordable housing for residents in Brooklyn and all over New York City. There is incredible doubt in the ability of Glen to do her job as well as immense critique on her past at Goldman Sachs and her methods of apparent utilization of “for profit” developers that are simultaneously developing neighborhoods in Brooklyn that are attributing to lack of affordability in the first place. There has been a large attack on her after an interview with Vice, for her disregard for the incredible changes that are uprooting peoples lives by writing off gentrification as people simply, “fearing change” and that “change is inevitable”, in response to a question regarding the rezoning of a neighborhood making people unable to afford their homes, Glen compares the idea to her dry cleaners changing ownership, “The reason why so many people are pissed is that they have been conditioned to the fear of change. I don't like it when my dry cleaner changes ownership. It pisses me off because I've known those people for years. It stresses me out. I don't like change. But change is inevitable and so how you shape the future is incredibly important as opposed to letting it wash over you. Because it's coming.” Change is of course sometimes good, and so is progress, but the disregard for human life and their established home, community, and kinship systems has been a cyclical issue in Brooklyn since the 1600s. Ironically the people who need the affordable housing are not the people who are moving into Brooklyn, but the people who have been in Brooklyn and now cannot afford to live there so are now needing a new place to live at a lower cost because of the aggressive shifts in median income in these areas. From an outsiders perspective it is easy to write off that gentrification has good elements to it, for example, “…the case of Greenpoint, Brooklyn where community members successfully contested practices of environmental gentrification, offers a potentially powerful counter-example to the dominant trend. Curran and Hamilton (2012) show how ‘[d]ecades of environmental activism by long-term residents and collaboration with more recent in-movers, many of whom are gentrifiers, has resulted in a cleanup process that actively contests the assumed outcome of environmental gentrification’ (1028)” While this idea of gentrification having a positive impact it also comes with a racial discourse, of people in these areas, implying they are unable to participate in sustainability because of the high cost of green products, and perhaps leaving work to have time to cook less wasteful meals etc. An influx of wealthy people into an area are able to commit to sustainability and green living, because of the privilege they have that allows that lifestyle. This creates more violence toward people of color and lower income people, segregating them further from being contributing members of society. Subordinating the original population and grouping them as people who cannot contribute to community health, environmental conservation, or sustainability codes those people as destructive to progress and construct a image of people that cannot help themselves or help their city. Another current instance that is affecting affordable housing capabilities and causing more displacement of people is the announcement of the Amazon Campus in Queensboro, NY right next to one of the largest public housing buildings in the city, with average median income around $15,000 for a family of four. With this enormous tech company having an office break ground right in the midst of the housing crisis as well as surrounding areas that could be developed into homes there is a lot of question on this decision being a good idea. In November 2017, Alicia Glen was interviewed on CNBC regarding the housing situation and how it would be affected by the construction of the building and infiltration of this billion dollar tech company, Glen advocates for New York to be chosen as the city to build the campus, and discusses the options she and the Mayor were prepared to present to the company’s CEO, Jeff Bezo, also known as, the world’s richest man. Glen expresses excitement regarding the diverse economy and diverse minds available in New York that she insists to be an enticing factor in Amazon’s choice to establish their second Headquarters in the city. She is then questioned about New York’s cost of living and how that is probably the biggest “knock” on attracting people to move and work for the headquarters, she responds acknowledging that, “We [NYC] are never going to be the low cost attraction, but there are so many other things going for New York City that we can overcome that perception.” She continues to explain that with the many diverse neighborhoods in New York city, there are still many places that remain affordable, specifically for people with high quality, middle class jobs, accidentally, acknowledging that lower income areas are predominantly racially diverse and true affordability in New York as of right now requires a “high quality” and “middle class” job. Glen calls out people for their misunderstanding of affordability, declaring there is a clear line between the “perception of affordability” versus the “reality of affordability”, and this ex-Goldman Sachs, Upper West side dwelling, Government representative thinks people are perceiving it incorrectly. Glen’s argument and advocacy for Amazon is a prime example for coercing people into supporting something that would later oppress them further with promises of improvements and employment. Overall, many different factors of gentrification, including construction of businesses, cause disputes within housing and displacement of people, Alicia Glen and the approach to the housing crisis exemplifies notions of neocolonialism.
Gentrification and Settler Colonialism
Settler colonialism, a term coined by Patrick Wolfe, is defined as a structural genocide that successfully eliminates and replaces the native, with a focus on expropriating land, goods, and elements in order to appropriate them. Gentrification in Brooklyn emulates the structures of settler colonialism and is essentially a contemporary form of colonization, although people attempt to leave the word “colonial” in the past out of fear of being held accountable for the continued perpetuation of violence toward indigenous people and minorities. When aligning the gentrification of Brooklyn with Wolfe’s definition, there are many parallels. There is a displacement of people, an elimination of original population, expropriation of land, appropriation of culture, and elements of a structural genocide such as: forced assimilation, coercion into agreeing and supporting movements that would later further oppress the “natives” and domination of a white settler. The young, liberal minded, upper middle class people that are moving into these areas are similar to the settler, perhaps with less violent intentions, but for the most part they are looking for a job, an affordable home, and places for provisions. What they either may not realize or not care about is that they are coming in contributing to a trend, they are able to pay higher rates and have perhaps more steady income. With the influx of young, white millennials, business owners begin to move into areas and make the neighborhoods even more attractive with overpriced smoothies and mason jar lit patios. With all these changes, property values are increased and people are forced to move out because they cannot afford only opening up more spaces for the people that kicked them out in the first place. Therefore the original population is removed and replaced with a contemporary “white settler”, and the cultural elements are destroyed and replaced with what appeals to the “settler”, suddenly there is a call for assimilation into these new establishments or to remove themselves from the neighborhood entirely.
Conclusion
Colonialism is still in deliberate action today from the United States abroad, but also through systems of oppression within New York City and cities beyond, that continue to enforce the “colonizer ” and “colonized” identities. Structural changes and government planning that cause racial zoning and segregation further these processes. Colonialism remains alive in reformed contemporary language, but in traditional, American practice.