Reading Reflection: Gentrification and Colonialism via "Development"

Reading Reflection:
While the three readings refer to three different places in different time periods experiencing different kinds of culture clashes, there were some common themes I found that connected gentrification to the colonialist style of aiding in development.

In all three situations, (Berlin in 2017, Capitol Hill in 2015, and Mexico in 1968), people of a different class and upbringing were using their wealth and the benefits reaped from a wealthier upbringing to go to the place experiencing gentrification/volunteer interference. Each of these communities formed without and, in some cases, as a response to, the growing middle-class majority of the world (but of America in particular). After all of these communities developed a unique culture and acquired status due to that uniqueness, this is when middle and upper class individuals made their move to either live in that space or go to that space for a short time for some "voluntourism". One could argue that the motivations of those participating in gentrification or colonial development is to attain status by traveling to/living in these places.

In addition, we can connect each situation to Illich's quote that volunteers were essentially "salesmen for the middle-class 'American Way of Life", since that is really the only life you know". Illich goes on to describe how the volunteers tease and torment the people in these villages with a life they could not possibly relate to or achieve (even if they wanted to). I would argue a similar phenomenon is happening with Capitol Hill and, perhaps to some extent, with Berlin. In the case of Capitol Hill, Tyler Larson is the equivalent of the 1968 volunteer that is an unintentional salesman for the middle-class American way of life because of how he lives and the fact he is a young, straight man int he tech industry making "close to six figures" can afford a very expensive apartment in a neighborhood previously known for its diverse community with people of many different backgrounds and professions, and for having affordable housing. Some in Cap Hill could be envious of Larson's status and their inability to attain it, and others may simply agree with the street art proclaiming "We Came Here to Get Away From You". I wouldn't be surprised if there was an analogy to this for the situation in Berlin.

However, gentrification differs somewhat from colonialism via development because, with the cases of gentrification examined in the two articles about Berlin and Capitol Hill, the people moving to the neighborhoods in question are crowding out others, whereas the US volunteers traveled to Mexico and returned to the US soon after, so the volunteers are not physically crowding out people in Mexico.

Questions for ethical community engagement with displaced people:
1. What are some things that I, as a person who has never been displaced from my home, may take for granted that a person who has been displaced does not have access to? Similarly, what are some misconceptions about what items and resources displaced peoples often do have access to?
2. What do you think is the biggest misconception that many people (in particular, middle class Americans) have about displaced people?