I don't get it

Gentrification is a concept that I find hard to grasp. I first learned about the concept in Taigi Smith's essay "What Happens When Your Hood is the Last Stop on the White Flight Express." I find it hard to understand because I don't get why a lower class neighborhood would suddenly become a trendy place for upper class white people to live. Perhaps this is because I live in a city, and I'm trying to imagine what is considered one of the worst neighborhoods in Cleveland, Kinsman, becoming a surburb-esque neighborhood. I just can't imagine any reason why upper middle class and upper class individuals would suddenly want to move to the neighborhood and displace the people that currently live there. In Smith's description of the gentrification of the "hood" in New York City, why that neighborhood and why at that time were the questions that popped into my head. I guess gentrification can happen for many reasons, but who gets to decide what place is a "trendy" place to live anyway?

I also found it interesting that Smith participated in gentrification in a way. Although she is a woman of color, by living in a building that served as the beginning of the gentrification of a neighborhood, it seemed to me that she was participating in the process that she loathed. However, I do think she recognized and acknowledged this participation in the text.

Her participation in the gentrification process isn't the only issue I had with what Smith discussed in her essay. She brings up welfare several times throughout the piece. For example, she writes, "They want to believe we are all on welfare, destined to become single mothers and crack addicts." I get that this statement is a critique of the stereotype that the white people that moved into her neighborhood possessed, but what bothers me is how negative she makes welfare sound. I personally hate that being on welfare is something that people have to be ashamed of and even hide. There is a negative connotation attached to the word. People assume that people on welfare are either lazy, irresponsible, uneducated, or a combination of these three characteristics. It is wrong to stigmatize welfare in this way because there are plenty of people that have done everything "right" and still needed to be on welfare at some time in their lives. Many people that have gone to college, got their college diploma, and sought a job end up being on welfare through no fault of their own. However, I do agree with Smith in the sense that welfare should not automatically be associated with a particular group of people.

On a separate note,  I would like to discuss "Love and Gold" by Arlie Hochschild. This piece elicited one main reaction from me: I cannot imagine having to leave behind my children to move to another country. I just can't. It sounds like such a terrible decision to have to make, and it is completely unfair that economic status forces lower class mothers to make this decision. The emotional toll on both the mothers and the children must be extremely great, and I imagine that many children do not understand why their mothers have left them.

 I do agree with Hochschild that something should be done about this situation. However, her suggestions fell flat. Changing the economy of a third world country is much more difficult than she makes it sound. Her best suggestion is to come up with a way that allows migrant mothers to more easily bring their children with them. A mother shouldn't have to be separated from her child just to make a living.