Phrase of the Day: “Swagger Jacking” (in a gentrification context)

I learned a new phrase today “swagger jacking.”  According to Urban Dictionary it means what one would expect–taking someone else’s swagger.  However, I learned the term from its application to gentrification and economic development.  A Washington Post blogger used it to describe new businesses in what was a historically black neighborhood appropriating black history to add cache to their (non black owned) businesses.

Stephen Crockett writes:

In a six-block stretch, we have Brixton, Busboys and Poets, Eatonville, Patty Boom Boom, Blackbyrd and Marvin. All are based on some facet of black history, some memory of blackness that feels artificially done and palatable. Does it matter that the owners aren’t black? Maybe. Does it matter that these places slid in around the time that black folks slid out? Maybe. Indeed, some might argue that these hip spots are actually preserving black culture, not stealing it.

This sort of thing has not happened in Northeast, Ohio where I live.  Historically black neighborhoods are still historically black and I do not see businesses catering to hipsters (much less the hipsters themselves) moving in.  There might be more of the phenomenon seen in hipsters and trendy establishments moving into what had been working class, immigrant neighborhoods, but that would not really be “swagger jacking” I believe.

No matter whether it only applies to DC, NYC and other places with great housing density and a high hipster to old time resident ratio, I am glad to learn a new term.

The Brixton, Washington, DC. [Photo: R. Lopez / Eater DC]

Capitalism and Diversity: Welcoming Asian Gamblers

Reading this piece by Thomas Ott on the efforts made by Cleveland’s new casino to appeal to Asian gamblers made me think about the intersection between diversity and capitalism.  The article clearly shows that if a group has money and a business wants the group to buy its products, the business will cultivate its sensitivity to diversity.  In this case the casino has two Chinese speaking hosts dedicated to working with top Asian customers and has also hosted special events tied to Asian festivals.  No one needed to tell the casino to please hire Asian workers to reflect the makeup of the community.  It was simply a matter of effectively cultivating customers.  I like this Laissez-faire approach to diversity, but I know it only works in some unique cases like this one.  The key is obviously the presence of a critical mass of diverse potential consumers, but it also seems essential that the group being targeted clearly demand superior service.  If the targeted group can be satisfied with a nod or a slight discount on an inferior product, then instead of promoting an understanding of diversity, this capitalist dynamic merely promotes stereotypes and cynical manipulation.

Informational but Saddening Map of Gender Disparities

The National Partnership for Women and Families has posted this map where one can find out the median wage gap by state and by congressional district.  The data compares the overall median income for both genders which is a rather blunt tool for analysis (as opposed to looking by profession or by education level), but still is makes for an intriguing study of geography and gender.  The congressional district where I live has a fairly small gap compared to others (see below), with women earning around 80% but that still is not great.

 

 

Powerful Piece “Being Poor”

“Being poor is your kid’s teacher assuming you don’t have any books in your home.

Being poor is six dollars short on the utility bill and no way to close the gap.

Being poor is crying when you drop the mac and cheese on the floor.

Being poor is knowing you work as hard as anyone, anywhere.

Being poor is people surprised to discover you’re not actually stupid.

Being poor is people surprised to discover you’re not actually lazy.

Being poor is a six-hour wait in an emergency room with a sick child asleep on your lap.

Being poor is never buying anything someone else hasn’t bought first.

Being poor is picking the 10 cent ramen instead of the 12 cent ramen because that’s two extra packages for every dollar.

Being poor is having to live with choices you didn’t know you made when you were 14 years old.

Being poor is getting tired of people wanting you to be grateful.”

–Excerpts from a piece by John Scalzi on his blog. Click here for the full version.

Toy Store Gender Segregation

A look at the Big Top section of Herrods

Should toy stores break down the traditional separation of toys into girls’ aisles (the dolls,etc.) and boys aisles (the toy trucks, etc.)?  I was reading on CNN about how Herrods, a British department store, has a new toy kingdom where toys are organized by theme.  For example there is a “Big Top” section where circus related toys that would traditionally appeal to both genders reside.

I wonder if this sort of thing would be possible in a mainstream American retailer?  Creating separate worlds seems to me to be the kind of thing that would work at a store where going there is an experience, but if I want to rush into Toys R Us to find a certain kind of doll, I want a doll aisle not a categorization text where I have to figure out what kingdom would be the location of what kind of doll.  Then again with online shopping growing in popularity, this might be the only way to keep the in store buying experience alive.

I certainly like the political idea here.  Putting Nerf machine guns next to Barbie dolls might break down assumptions.  The symbolic point that there are not “girl” and “boy” sections or kinds of toys is worth making, but will it make money?

$65 a Month in Allowance Average Raises Questions

The average allowance given American children is $65 a month.  This is according to a poll for the American Institute of CPAs by Harris Interactive.  That total would amount to $16.25 a week.  These numbers make me wonder as to the methodology of the poll.  Also, I wonder if the parents giving this amount or more expect kids to pay for certain items out of this total, for example cell phone charges, clothing, some food items?  I also wonder what this number says about social class in America?  My hypothesis is that this level of allowance giving is something of a middle class phenomenon.  Perhaps, and I am generalizing here, the richest families do not give allowances because funds are relatively unlimited and teaching frugality is not necessary where as poorer families do not have the resources to make these payments.  I know I did not receive an allowance close to this amount, even adjusted for inflation.

 

Geography meets Charity meets Wealth

The How America Gives map at the Chronicle of Philanthropy website is amazing.  One can find out the median discretionary income for a city, county or zip code and then find out the percent of income given to charity.  It is fun to play with the numbers and see what correlations one can find.  Who gives more of their income?  This data may help reinforce or undercut stereotypes.

 

Sample color coded map of giving

Enlightening Segment on Race, Death, and Funerals in the South

If you have a chance listen to this Tell Me More interview with Samuel Gaines the president of a longstanding black funeral home in Fort Pierce, Florida.  What he said about black life in the Jim Crow South and the role of the funeral home and director in the community struck me.  In particular I noted how in the past there were no obituaries in this town for blacks and very limited death records, so the funeral director’s records provided the history.  However, the sections of the interview that stayed with the most were as follows.

Gaines in talking about his generations general weariness regarding whether kind treatment by whites was genuine commented, “I guess it’s our upbringing but it’s just something in us that we are weary when we meet people. It worries me because I have grandchildren that feel as if they have been totally accepted into society.”  He implied that really his grandchildren have not been accepted and are just being deceived.  In a way this quotation could summarize the difference between “racial” and “post-racial” America.

In terms of economics, Gaines noticed that whereas in the past white funeral homes would not bury blacks, now they will because that is where the money is.  He analyzes the situation saying, “The black family still holds funerals to something high on their list, that’s where the money is. Whites now are going for cremation, so therefore, the white funeral homes now are not getting the dollars, so therefore, if a black family walks in to them they’re going to accept that family because they want them to spend the money. So therefore, because of economics, whites now are burying anybody that comes in to them. They are our main competition.”  That dynamic is great proof that the desire for profit can overcome bias.  It also leads one to wonder if it is indeed true that black families are more likely to go with a full on funeral where cremation is white thing.

As  I said earlier, if you get a chance to listen to the whole thing, I suggest you do so, or read the transcript.

Our Black Year: The Difficulty of Economic Empowerment

I just finished Maggie Anderson’s Our Black Year: One Family’s Quest to Buy Black in America’s Racially Divided Economy.  The book details her family’s efforts to buy goods and services only from black owned businesses for a year.  The effort and book do a fine of job of pointing out the lack of black owned businesses.  Living in Chicago the Andersons cannot find a black owned grocery store or a black owned store to provide new children’s clothing.  Even finding pull ups proves to be a difficulty.  On the other hand, some parts of her argument fail to convince the reader.

The book echos a lot of what Malcolm X said about the need for black owned businesses.  See for example this quotation from his “The Ballot or the Bullet” speech:

“Then you wonder why where you live is always a ghetto or a slum area. And where you and I are concerned, not only do we lose it when we spend it out of the community, but the white man has got all our stores in the community tied up; so that though we spend it in the community, at sundown the man who runs the store takes it over across town somewhere. He’s got us in a vise. So the economic philosophy of black nationalism means in every church, in every civic organization, in every fraternal order, it’s time now for our people to be come conscious of the importance of controlling the economy of our community. If we own the stores, if we operate the businesses, if we try and establish some industry in our own community, then we’re developing to the position where we are creating employment for our own kind.”

However, Anderson makes a point of couching her argument in such a way that it is not militant, in fact striving to avoid any sense that she is following in the footsteps of Malcolm X.  Instead she ties her efforts to W.E.B. DuBois’s  concept of the talented tenth.  She makes an argument that people like her family, the black elite, should support black stores as part of their responsibility to their people.  This choice, while perhaps appealing on one level, does run the risk of elitism on another.

She also seems to over dramatize her family’s predicament.  At one point her daughter does not have shoes that fit because they cannot find a local black owned store selling children’s footwear.  As a reader in 2012, I find it hard to believe that she could not find a black owned shoe store somewhere on the Internet or could not email a friend in another city to buy and  ship some shoes–the insistence on staying in Chicago seems artificial. Likewise, the family winds up eating a lot of food from convenience stores and fast food franchises because of the lack of black owned grocery stores.  At one point the author has to break down and buy produce from a Hispanic store and suffers severe internal turmoil. I see the point, but once again the image seems rather artificially emphasized.

In general the book raised lots of provocative questions, particularly around issues as to why there is a lack of black owned businesses.  Is it the fault of history and lack of black wealth accumulation?  Is it the fault of the black consumer failing to support black businesses?  Would having more black owned businesses result in the cascade of positive community benefits Anderson asserts would result.

It is not a particularly even treatment of issues but makes one think.

 

Island Angst or Why I Should not Have Read Jamaica Kincaid

Queen Liloukalani, the last Hawaiian monarch

So I leave tomorrow for vacation, heading eventually for a week on the Hawaiian island of Kauai.  I am looking forward to the time way, the relaxation, the beautiful scenery, the ocean, the sand, and all of the other aspects of vacation.

However, I also suffer from a case of post-colonial island angst.  This peculiar malady is caused by reflecting on what it means to be a tourist, particular the elements of race, class, and imperialism that play a role in my traveling to enjoy the exotic or foreign elements of an island whose past involves colonial occupation.

In my case the onset of this malady can be traced to my reading Jamaica Kincaid’s essay “A Small Place” in which she lambastes the white tourists coming to her home island of Antigua stating:

“An ugly thing, that is what you are when you become a tourist, an ugly empty thing, a stupid thing, a piece of rubbish pausing here and there to gaze at this and taste that, and it will never occur to you that the people who inhabit the place in which you have just paused cannot stand you, that behind their closed doors they laugh at your strangeness” [17].

She goes on to explain how tourists are oblivious to the suffering, oppression and marginalization of the residents of the island.  She ties tourism to the island’s colonial past, particularly its experience as a British colony and sees it it as an extension of that past.

After reading the book, I resolved never to travel as a tourist to any Caribbean island and also threw in the resorts of Mexico to be comprehensive.  I do not want to play any part in the post-colonial ugliness.

When it comes to the Pacific, my view is colored by my experience living on Guam for two years.  There I saw first hand the way the residents both enjoyed economic benefits of being a US territory but also resented the loss of land and autonomy.  There was definitely the sense of the Guam as an American colonial possession, an island with no vote in Congress, limited if any say in many key issues,  and a history of American occupation dating back to the Spanish American war.  As part of Guam’s marginal colonial existence, the education system was inferior to that in the 50 states as was the medial system (except for the military hospitals).  Like those other islands, Guamanians made money off of tourists but did not particularly like them seeing them as rather clueless individuals who could be charged exorbitant non-resident rates for goods and services.

Based on my reading and experiences, I therefore am not a fan of being a tourist on an island, particularly one that has been colonized by a European/American superpower leaving the local population in a marginalized position.

Hawaii, however, presents a different situation.  On the one hand it was a US colonial possession where the US deposed an indigenous monarchy and took power.   There are also many issues around land rights and movements to increase Native Hawaiian rights. On the other hand, Hawaii is a US state with all the benefits and representation that entails.  It cannot really be said to be a colonial possession, although its history involves colonialism.

Still, as a potential tourist, I wonder if in Hawaii I am the ugly being Kincaid describes.  Am I with my white skin and economic resources clearly an outsider who would be better off staying home?  I do not think so, after all I am helping the local economy and all of this angst at least shows I am conscious of the various dynamics.  Still, I wonder about the acquisition of the land on which the resort hotel stands and I will be avoiding any luaus and hula shows. It is one thing to passive acquiesce in the demise of Queen Liliuokalani.  It is another thing to consume deliberately a repackaging of Hawaiian traditions for tourist consumption.

But here is the question, why do I feel all this angst regarding island vacations when I do not feel it when vacationing in the mainland US?  Should  I not feel guilt visiting anywhere the indigenous population has been removed and/or marginalized?  Perhaps it is proximity that bothers me, proximity to the dispossessed, and I would prefer to live my life not thinking of that reality.