Everyone should take a couple minutes and read the news story
titled, “Memphis Recognized for Revitalization Program.”
The short news article describes the success in the
Historic Broad Avenue Association recognizes Memphis for its revitalization
program. The article states, “Memphis is
recognized as a model for government focused on job creation, economic growth,
and crime reduction” (Harris). The
article immediately made me think of Armstead L. Robinson’s “Plans Dat Comed
from God: Institution Building and the Emergence of Black Leadership in
Reconstruction Memphis.” It was very eye
opening to read about the hard work, success, and perseverance displayed in the
reconstruction era in Robinson’s piece.
Blacks were finally granted their freedom, however it was not an easy
transition. Blacks made up 40% of
Memphis in 1865 (Robinson 81).
Furthermore, there was a large working-class poor. Robinson noted that there was more stability
and persistence in that class than expected (83). In my opinion, I would not find the stability
and persistence surprising. The slaves
that were emancipated had developed work ethic and skills that would exceed
those of the white upper class. Slaves
were forced to deal with unbelievable poor situations; in terms of owners,
climates, work hours, and even jobs, that they had the capability to persevere
through extremely difficult obstacles.
Reverend Henderson is a great example of using his negative
experiences to create positive opportunity.
Henderson was a slave preacher emancipated in 1865 (73). Henderson confidently abandoned the white
First Baptist Church in order to create the Black Baptist Church (74). Henderson’s leadership was so crucial at this
time; he finally received some opportunity that he was deprived of his entire
life. His chance paid off, after a few
years, the First Baptist Beale Street proved extremely successful as it served
as the “mother” for many other black Baptist churches (74). Henderson was just an example of all the
potential and great opportunity the United States had literally caged in for so
many years before.
The aspect of the police force and crime reduction addressed
by both Robinson and Harris is tough to find answers for. Robinson describes the struggles freed blacks
endured just to sustain themselves.
Freed blacks had to fight against idleness, disease, starvation, and
even the prejudice of the Irish police force (80). Ironically, in the news article brought
light to the same issues. Harris noted “job
creation, economic growth, and crime reduction” as aspects praised for their
improvement. From my own experience, I
feel that racial profiling within the police force is still an issue very prevalent
to Memphis.
Robinson poses the question: How could a group of people so
recently freed from the shackles of bondage adjust with such apparent ease to
the sudden transformation and slavery to freedom?
I find that question very interesting, and I’ve struggled to
come up with an answer because, as the news article proved, I feel that the
reconstructive efforts in Memphis have not been completed. It seems as if the same struggles freed
blacks endured in the Reconstructive era are still very present today.
This article is very interesting to me because we are discussing the Memphis revitalization phenomenon in my Urban Geography class. However, we are discussing it in light of the effect that it's having on the division of labor. This revitalization effort is bringing in new jobs and sustained growth, sure, but for whom? These jobs are for people who can afford to start a business (although city government funding is helping, you wouldn't see a homeless person making use of these efforts) and the growth is for the people who can maneuver their way into this economy. In other words, the growth is for the people who are either/both consuming the goods and/or creating the goods. With this in mind, those who are economically unable to contribute are being further pushed away for the area and those who can't contribute at all or still suffering in that capacity (i.e. the division of labor is further growing). So, I don't really think that this is evidence of a revitalization effort for everyone (mostly middle class whites (and blacks) who at least have their foot in the door). We don't see a great revitalization effort occurring in the majority of the black population here. This division of labor stems from way back when downtown areas were deemed Central Business Districts and were the hub of urban activity (manufacturing, nightlife, financial institutions, everything!) but eventually suburbs grew and all of that activity shifted out and left the workers who couldn't keep up with the transitioning (i.e. couldn't afford to relocate or transport themselves to work) to suffer. The capitalists forced this suffering upon the workers as they strived to continue to "keep up with the Jones'" and do whatever was most profitable for them. We still see this division today as education and technological advancement have become the necessary requirements for industrial growth and profit, but people a lot of people are struggling to get where they need to be to contribute and benefit from the growth. In addition, we have what's called the "creative class" growing and from a study by Richard Florida that we read in my Urban class, this creativity is concentrated in areas with incredible diversity and in areas that have a high concentration of people with bachelors degrees (yes, that was indeed the finding). So, although no causal relationship was established necessarily, it seems as though that is what is constituting this idea of creative development. I say this to further point out the growing division of labor that is being instituted as people find ways for economic growth.
ReplyDeleteAll in all, I think that yes growth is occurring in Memphis, but it's not targeted towards the people who really need the assistance. Instead they're getting pushed further and further down the totem pole metaphorically and physically further from the areas of development as cost of living increases due to the development.
I agree that there was a great period of growth and prosperity in the black population after bondage (not with ease though...), and that growth may have appeared great because of the comparison to the situation that they were in before (bondage). But, I don't think we're seeing growth and prosperity targeted towards the socioeconomically lower black class today. This idea of growth is somewhat misleading. It's growth for a few.
Wiki article about the Creative Class for further explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_class
One more thing....the black population was able to strive, push forward, and create an array of activities and economic gains for themselves after bondage, but if we're comparing that to today, I don't think that's as easy of a task today for the lower socioeconomic black and white populations. This is so because of how advanced our cities have become; you would have to have money, education, and a lot of resources to make something like that happen. In addition, with the current "revitalization" efforts going on, this process is even harder and this lower socioeconomic class is being pushed further down. So, I agree, we're seeing a lot of the same struggles as many blacks do not have the support of the current economy to prosper. They'll have to do it all on their own, but that's damn near impossible in today's industrial world. Okay...I'm finished.
ReplyDeleteI think that the type of urban development the article describes and the institution building which occurred by Africans in America are vastly different. African American institution building occurred out of a necessity while the growth described in the article is an outcome of opportunity. Breaking the notion of slavery and the complete degradation of the African race in America was a near impossible task. Professor describes the institution building as an “inside out dynamic,” that, Africans made the decision to protect themselves internally. Starting, this looked like aiding one’s neighbor and working together on an individual basis to survive. Soon, this changed into major institution building. In the lack of governmental support, especially in funding (I’m assuming), African’s, again rising out of necessity to create a better society, built and operated churches, schools, whole towns and populations who worked together.
ReplyDeleteCompare that to the many development projects happening in Memphis and we see a very different origin. I don’t believe it takes much thought to conclude that the city, including its government; want to experience positive growth and especially monetary profits to do so. Many of these incentives have been designed to do just that—to bring in more profits for the city through the creation of new businesses, especially those which attract tourism (a large portion of income for any city). Broad Street is an excellent example of this. Broad was a normal street, backing up to a warehouse distribution center on one side and a low income neighborhood on the other, when one day an initiative was formed to fill the storefronts and create a ‘cool’ district. Incentives were given, businesses were opened, street fairs were had; the initiative worked. But who did it benefit? The low income neighborhood that now is experiencing an increase in property value and has to listen to a loud karaoke bar behind their houses every night now? Those store owners were not completely disenfranchised people looking to create a means to survive. In fact I personally know one of the bar owners; he is a lawyer by day and owns a popular bar on Broad Street by night. Not exactly the fresh out of chattel slavery slave raising a wall of a school for his children to be educated so they will not have to face slavery.