Mapping Latine Inequalities – Reading Responses

Mapping Latine Inequalities – Reading Responses

Author: Viraj Bansal

  • Viraj Bansal WK 7 Response

    The article “South Central Farmers and Shadow Hills Homeowners: Land Use Policy and Relational Racialization in Los Angeles” by Laura R. Barraclough explores the figurative conflict between farmers in South Central Los Angeles and the residents of the Shadow Hills neighborhood in Los Angeles. She talks about this conflict’s roots in the way that laws and regulations surrounding the development and use of land have been shaped, and how the city’s history of systemic racism and racial segregation has been intertwined with their land-use regulations.

    The author gives context to the racial connotations behind the history of land-use laws in Los Angeles and how the racialization of land-use policy is still shown and present in modern-day Los Angeles. Historically, Black and Latinx communities have suffered from different laws, policies, and regulations in Los Angeles in regard to the way the city’s land is distributed, used, and developed. Things such as housing policies and zoning laws have more often than not had racist motivations or undertones that put minority citizens at a further disadvantage. 

    The South Central farmers were a predominantly Latinx and Black community of urban farmers that operated within a specific designated space in South Central Los Angeles. In the mid-2000s, these farmers were forcibly removed from operating in this space, as the property was sold to a private real estate developer. The farmers were evicted from their homes, and the space was now catered towards the rich and wealthy. Meanwhile, in Shadow Hills, the homeowners of the upper-class neighborhood made lengthy efforts to maintain their neighborhoods stability and to preserve their zoning and land regulations. The conflict lies in the fact that the neighborhood in the middle of South Central was developed with the intentions of building something similar to that of Shadow Hills, displaying the clear financial and economic motivations behind the evictions of the farmers and the new development of the neighborhood.

    The article’s specific exploration of the farmers’ fight and struggle is a symbol of the larger battle of overcoming the deeply rooted struggles of racism, displacement, social justice, racial and class discrimination, and gentrification. Farmers were pushed out of their home communities to make room for white, wealthier newcomers. This example is one of the many examples throughout the America’s recent history of the harshness and unfairness of gentrification. The farmers, who were lower-income residents and almost entirely Latinx and Black, were essentially pitted against upper-class white residents who had advantages in not only resources, but also in the government’s decision-making and catering.

    I found this article interesting, specifically this example of the conflict between the South Central farmers and the suburban, upper-class Shadow Hills residents. It is interesting to read about different major examples of gentrification that are most often not talked about in the American nation-wide media or in school-courses of recent history and social studies. Overall, I hope that these types of key examples are taught more, as gentrification is an ongoing process and a goal of many governments around the United States that continues to cause the suffering of the lower class and the minority population in America.

  • Viraj Bansal WK 6 Response

    “A Lighter Shade of Brown? Racial Formation and Gentrification in Latino Los Angeles” by Alfredo Huante analyzes the recent and ongoing gentrification of Los Angeles and the effects that the Latinx community have suffered as a result. Huante specifically references the concept and theory of “racial formation” and how racial and cultural dynamics are shifted and reshaped due to gentrification. “How to Kill a City” by Peter Moskowitz examines how communities that are impoverished and majority people of color are affected most by gentrification. The article dives deeper into the development of modern real estate practices and government policies which both are large contributors to gentrification and how gentrification is a systemic issue.

    Both articles emphasize the destructive nature of gentrification, depicting the harsh impacts left on gentrified communities. Both articles identify how gentrification erases racial and cultural presences within these communities in a harmful manner. They depict the effects that Latinx communities across the country have been forced to undergo through the gentrification of their neighborhoods. These neighborhoods, harshly and often violently, shift towards mostly white, affluent neighborhoods while erasing the Latin culture and sense of community. Both authors push forth the idea of gentrification’s contribution to social and racial inequality and discrimination in America, and how the process of gentrification contributes to a larger process of the erasure and suppression of the Latinx community.  

    Moskowitz’s article takes a larger-scoped perspective on gentrification, analyzing the impacts that people of color as a whole suffer around the country. Huante’s article is more focused, specifically observing and analyzing the gentrification of Latinx communities in Los Angeles. While Moskowitz’s article gives more attention to the governmental and economic aspects and impacts of gentrification, Huante focuses more on the racial and anti-Latinx contexts of gentrification. While both articles have some overlap in this sense, a key difference between the two is the identification and specification of the intent behind gentrification, and each article analyzes a different aspect of the motivations behind it. 

    Both articles are mostly factual but also leave some room for interpretation and both authors mix in some of their own insights into the issues surrounding gentrification and the problematic nature of the process. In my opinion, both authors make very valid points about the negative effects of gentrification, and I agree that the violent and devastating nature of gentrification is why it is a process that needs to be gotten rid of altogether. While economic progression is important, and while it is necessary for societies to change and improve, it should never be at the hands of minority communities throughout America. These cultures are important and it is significant that these cultural practices and presences remain intact as American society continues to change. Progression should never be at the hands of any already-disadvantaged group, because in my opinion that outweighs any sort of economic or political benefit that may come with gentrification.

  • Viraj Bansal WK 5 Response

    “The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano” is Equiano’s autobiography where he writes about essentially his entire life, from his upbringings in Africa to his life as an enslaved person to his life as a free man and anti-slavery advocate. He goes more specifically into detail about the transatlantic slave trade and the absolute horrors him and other enslaved people had to endure. In “The Dysfunctional and the Disappearing: Democracy, Race, and Imprisonment”, author Joy James constructively criticizes the American prison system from a standpoint of anti-racism, placing focus on the mass incarceration of Black Americans and the disproportionate number of Black people in American prisons.

    Both authors dedicate a large portion to advocacy against the racial injustices highlighted in their respective pieces of writing. Equiano was an abolitionist and had the specific goal of putting a permanent end to transatlantic slave trade. Joy James is passionate about dismantling the racism within the prison and legal system. Both authors also use their writing to challenge the reader to rethink American societal and legal systems and aspects of the current climate of when the respective pieces of literature were released.

    There are some relatively significant differences in the two stories. Equiano’s story is from the first person. It’s a personal account of his struggles through slavery and his mission after his supposed freedom. Meanwhile, James’ story is a third person view on a current issue which she wants to bring attention and awareness to in hopes of making a number of different changes in a long-term scope. While both pieces of writing are evidently about injustices for Black Americans, the extent to which both subjects are about injustice is quite different in scale between the two.

    There is not necessarily anything to agree or disagree on regarding Equiano’s autobiography, as it is an objective account of his personal experience as a victim of slavery. However, while much of James’ article does include high objectivity, there are parts that are more opinionated and suggestions of what James thinks would be right or should be done. Overall, I do agree with the sentiments of James’ article and the overall goal of her writing and research. I feel that the prison and legal system in America should completely disregard race. The law, while of course being open to interpretation in essentially all instances, should not incorporate racial biases. There is no reason other than bias and forms of systemic racism as to why there is such a high disproportionate number of incarcerated Black Americans.

  • Viraj Bansal WK 4 Response

    Still Falling Through the Cracks: Revisiting the Latina/o Education Pipeline by Lindsay Pérez Huber, Maria C. Malagón, Brianna R. Ramírez, Lorena Camargo Gonzalez, Alberto Jimenez, and Verónica N. Vélez depicts the systemic racism and barriers that exist against Latinx students within the American education system. The article covers several factors that contribute to the overall disadvantage of being a Latinx student in America, no matter what age. The article talks about how schools within Latinx communities are underfunded and some of the cultural and lingual challenges and setbacks that young Latinx students experience. The article also discusses the disproportion of Latinx students in higher education and uses graphs to exhibit how despite the percentage of the population they make up, their rate of educational success in post-high school is immensely low. 

    The writers of the article call for changes to be made in order to lower the Latinx student dropout rate and to increase the representation of Latinx people in higher education. The article lists numerous recommendations involving DEI employment, specific policy changes, and affirmative action as a whole. The article brings up discussions and awareness towards systemic racism, educational inequality, and the general minority-student experience in America. It suggests solutions revolving specifically around the structure of the education system and how structural changes could help increase the rate of success among Latinx Americans in higher education. 

    I overall agree with the sentiments of the article. The overall argument attacks current social and structural norms within the education system and displays the negative effects they have had on the Latinx community. This article is of course a reminder of the historical systemic racism and the impacts that it continues to have on modern American society for the minority youth. The writers give suggestions revolving around affirmative action and a hopeful increase in diversity, equity, and inclusion to help remedy the disproportionate and unfair setbacks of Latinx students in America. 

    The underrepresentation of the Latinx youth leads to a lack of true leadership, educational support, and general empowerment for Latinx students throughout their youth and young adulthood, and without proper reform, this will be a continuing cycle that continues to give young Latinx people an educational disadvantage in American society.

  • Viraj Bansal WK 3 Response

    In the essay Whiteness as Property, author Cheryl I. Harris writes about the roots of American racism. She discusses the legal and social privileges of white people and disadvantages of black people, along with the evolution of these bases of racism and some of the big forms of implementation of these social and legal constructs. As the essay progresses, she transitions from the presence of whiteness as property to affirmative action and the way that the property interest in whiteness has been slowly, but surely, diminished and reduced over the years. 

    Harris discusses the original definition and viewpoints of “property” and how black people were associated with being considered property while white people were protected from this disadvantage and were privileged enough to be considered fully human. She writes about how only white people can own property and that many laws and definitions were carefully constructed to favor and benefit white people. She goes on to discuss major cases in Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education to give major examples of how racism and discriminatory laws negatively impacted black people and benefited their white counterparts. I agree with Harris’ ongoing point that race goes far beyond a physical and visual identity, rather that race is embedded into social structures, norms, and laws. I found it interesting how Harris connects laws and rules regarding racism and property during the early stages of America to the more modern forms of racism and the way the concept is viewed and used today. She essentially created a timeline of the way racial inequalities have been present in America, both legally and societally. 

    The final portion of Harris’ essay where she discusses modern-day forms of affirmative action ties together the entirety of her essay in a sense where after discussing the roots of racism, she displays ways that society is attempting to remedy or reverse the long-term impacts of these roots. She insists on the importance of recognizing that black people still suffer from the original definitions of property and laws that disadvantaged black Americans. She concludes her essay to say “it is long past time to put the property interest in whiteness to rest” and states how affirmative action is a step towards “shedding the legacy of oppression” (1791).

    Overall, I agree with Harris’ points. Much of the essay is purely factual while the final major portion is more opinionated and less definite. I believe that the original definitions and views of property in America created a system that has continued to set black people back and still does to this day. There is a way to eventually get rid of this system altogether, it will just be a very long and very slow process, and affirmative action is the first step in this process.

  • Viraj Bansal WK 2 Response

    The article Decolonization is not a metaphor by Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang discusses the concept of decolonization and how the term is often discussed and utilized in a way that ignores the harsh brutality behind the original instances of colonization. The term “decolonize” and other forms of the word typically is, as argued by the article, incorrectly used as a metaphor or a symbol. Tuck and Yang maintain their idea that decolonization is a term and concept that should only be used in the context of literal returning of land and property, along with freedom and sovereignty, back to those who were priorly colonized and stripped of their rights and independence. 

    The article directly challenges the way that modern society approaches conversations about decolonization and society’s use of the term itself. The idea comes up in academic, social, activistic, and progressive settings, and this article criticizes the vagueness and looseness of how the term “decolonization” is used. Tuck and Yang point out how watered down the term has become when you look at the bigger picture and the history behind the idea of decolonization and colonization. They point out the brutality, the violence, the sheer unfairness and hopelessness behind colonization. The way that those who were colonized were stripped of their power, freedom, and rights, decolonization is the idea that all of these are to be fully returned. Specifically, in Indigenous communities, the article mentioned the major asterisks behind historical instances of supposed decolonization, such as the high rates of death and missingness amongst women and the lack of clean and healthy conditions for the Indigenous people after having everything that had once been stripped from them supposedly handed back to them. There is more symbolism behind decolonization that is often not attached to it the way it should be, in that decolonization does not have only to do with the physical regaining of land, but rather also the internal and cultural freedom and autonomy of the formerly colonized communities. 

    I do agree with Tuck and Yang’s take on decolonization. It is a term and concept that when spoken about, often lacks the true seriousness and proper context behind the term and what it should truly mean. It is a powerful concept that should always be linked to symbolic freedom rather than just physical release from another governing body.