September 22, 2010 | 11:56 AM | By

On Milloy, Gentrification and Getting “Over” things

FILED UNDER: Around the City, Gentrification, Milloy, Race and Class

Stacie Joy for CTTC

Alex Baca, the blogger behind “Good Hope Anacostia” writes: “Latest Courtland Milloy column is ignorant, hypocritical“. It’s worth a read, especially because she includes reading recommendations, but she lost me when she complained that the term “Chocolate City” wasn’t inclusive enough. Maybe she isn’t a fan of P-funk.

I’m not trying to say that things are all warm and fuzzy throughout DC, but identifying problems is not as easy as saying “white people do this” and “black people do this.” Understandably, longtime residents of this city, many of whom (but not all!) are low-income African Americans, feel threatened by gentrification because there is the possibility of displacement. Though I don’t believe that gentrification always needs to equal displacement, it generally has in the past, which has cemented that fear. But, we can’t forget that the idea of a “Chocolate City” is not exactly inclusive of white people…There’s tensions on both sides, but until we get over these identity stereotypes—which are flattering to no one—we’re not going anywhere.

Baca (who lives, like I do, in Ward 1) describes her site as “an informal holding tank of information to be used in a thesis about gentrification, development, and displacement” in Anacostia.

About the author

DCentric was created to examine the ways race and class interact in Washington, D.C., a city with a vibrant mix of cultures and neighborhoods. Your guides to the changing district are reporters Anna John and Elahe Izadi. View all posts by Anna →

  • alexbaca

    Hey! Thanks for the link :) I wasn't complaining. Personally, I find the whole “Chocolate City” thing really interesting, and I enjoy living here because of that. My point of it being “not exactly inclusive of white people” is that I'm not even sure if it IS supposed to be inclusive. It's a point of pride for African Americans, especially those that have been there for decades. I don't think that's a bad thing. The idea of “Chocolate City” and what's attached to those words is extremely important to DC's history and I don't want to deride that.

    I think “Chocolate City” is a thing, an atmosphere, and an identity, and I'm not even sure if it's SUPPOSED to be inclusive. That's the point that I was trying to raise–I have no complaints about it.

  • Anonymous

    It seems many can agree that a mix of incomes and “races” and cultures is a desirable thing for a thriving community. Except for those folks that will have their comfort level or desire for homogenous power or identity challenged. But we might remember that Shaw and Columbia Heights ad Anacostia and some other neighborhoods also saw significant racial change – when they went from majority white to black decades ago. Some will say that whites elected to leave (for the white only burbs) or they fled black neighbors moving in. But those mostly white neighborhoods were “lost” nonetheless. The point is the city, neighborhoods, housing exists within the capitalist system and there will ups and downs of different groups over the centuries. Change is predictable. Staying the same forever is not.
    The current trend, if it continues, does seem to suggest that Blacks will comprise about a third of DC within the next 40 years. The city will become more polyglot. But racial and class segregation will likely remain in many places.

    Another little mentioned issue is that no city can thrive if one third of its residents are poor. We all should be incensed about that!
    So how to help the poor to rise above poverty here, rather than just deplete their housing options and nudge them out of town?

  • Anonymous

    Maybe it’s time to call it Mocha City instead.