Unit VII Create

“The Ghetto is a Gold Mine”: The Racialized Temporality of Betterment

Marisa Solomon Baruch College, City University of New York

Abstract

Gentrification makes trash a discursive and material index of degeneration, mobilizing projects to “clean” and “better” neighborhoods and people. This ethnographic article explores how trash’s movements and labor reveal the spatialized and temporalized racial histories of neighborhood transformation in the historically black neighborhood of Bedford-Stuyvesant (Bed-Stuy), Brooklyn and the gentrified town of Norfolk, Virginia. Foregrounding the objects and people whose value(s) are called into question as the context around them changes, I draw on two key interlocutors whose scavenging is conditioned by the “betterment”—community revitalization and “clean up”— programs that seek to displace them. As Sal “saves” Bed-Stuy by directing the flow of the dismembered ghetto, Superfly redirects coffee shop ephemera to black barbershops. By attending to how trash moves, Sal’s and Superfly’s labor make visible the material conditions of gentrification and point to how race and time are spatialized under racial capitalism.

Introduction

Ideologies of gentrification deploy the belief that urban change is natural. In a comment on a New York Times article on gentrification, putative New Yorker “JS” writes, “Who really wants to live in a borderline [sic] Ghetto? Things change for the worse and things change for the better.”1 Annoyed by the arti- cle’s political implications that gentrification is “state-sponsored, corporate- driven, and turbo-charged,” JS follows up, “why is it no one ever mentions how the people behave and carry themselves in those areas?” For gentrification supporters, when a community is replaced, this is both a natural passage of time and a sign of progress.

Underlying assertions that change is inevitable is a Western teleology of betterment in which change is not only natural, it is how we mark time. By improving infrastructure, attracting luxury shops, and sponsoring neighborhood clean-up projects, development seems to transform “degraded” and stagnant spaces into lively, growing neighborhoods. Within this framework, degradation is taken to be an obvious and homogeneous process of material transformation, and the swift and violent displacement of the working-class, poor people, and people of color appears to be “for the better.” When displacement is naturalized as change, discarding objects and people appears like the self-evident outcome of “bettering” the neighborhood. This moralizing discourse justifies urban trans- formation. But processes of gentrification, as much as they seem to evidence

International Labor and Working-Class History No. 95, Spring 2019, pp. 76–94 # International Labor and Working-Class History, Inc., 2019 doi:10.1017/S0147547919000024

themselves through “progress,” are deeply embedded in long histories of racial- ized property valuation and revaluation, demolition and development. These processes enroll and determine the kinds of objects and people that are allowed to flow through and around neighborhoods. Gentrification is a specific mode of revaluation2 that devalues black claims to place in order to revalue space,3 and as such is a process embedded within racial capitalism, which racial- izes to determine (hierarchical) value.

This article is situated within a larger ethnographic project exploring how waste flows; or rather, what the long-distance management of waste reveals about how infrastructure sutures together seemingly-disconnected and discrete places. Gentrification is but one of many processes within a longer history of racial capitalism in which the project to value and de-value (land, people, labor, objects) helps to determine the place of waste (whose neighborhood, whose city), where it leaves, and where it “belongs.” The economic depreciation of black and brown neighborhoods as a result of long-term disinvestment not only undermines poor people and people of color’s claims to belonging, it is a requirement for the reproduction of capital. And the reproduction of capital is the heart of gentrification. As corporations, Business Interest Districts (BIDs), and developers “invest” in the betterment of degraded city landscapes, waste is treated as—and systemically produced to be—something specific to poor people’s and people of color’s landscapes. Take, for example, how landfills and toxic factories are overwhelmingly sited in and near communities of color, or how trash in a poor black neighborhood like Bed-Stuy becomes evidence of residents’ bad behavior. This article ethnographically explores two apparently separate stories about how poor people laboring waste—in distant neighbor- hoods connected by the flow of trash from north to south, New York City to Norfolk, Virginia—live out, and abut, the legacies of these spatial histories. They speak with and against sanitary regimes in which to “clean up” the ’hood defines waste and its routes in proximity to racialized poverty. Under these conditions, clean up becomes a civilizing project to ensure a better, whiter, gentrified future.

Trash routes not only carve out spaces of flow (from the trashcan to the waste treatment site, or the thirty-six thousand tons from New York City diverted on barges to Virginia daily), they shape the valuation of seemingly- discrete spaces like Bed-Stuy (once, dramatically rhymed with Pig-Stuy) in Brooklyn, NY, and the already cleaned-up city of Norfolk, Virginia, continuously surveilled by gentrification initiatives like “Waste Watch.” This article traces how those caught up in the effects of waste flows (degradation, state sponsored dispos- session, devaluation and revaluation of land through a call to gentrify) attempt themselves to transform how things move (from a “bad neighborhood” to a “good” one, from old to new, from trash to treasure), and, in turn, how the processes that produce movement and transformation end up moving them.

My informants challenge the temporality of betterment naturalized in both the discourses and processes of gentrification. By highlighting the material con- ditions within which racialized logics of land use produce neighborhood and

“The Ghetto is a Gold Mine” 77

aesthetic value, this article suggests that the direction of neighborhood transfor- mation is not a given. Both panhandlers in the South and scavengers in the North use talk about (re)valuing objects as a way to talk about the spatial trans- formations that displace them. For Sal, a notorious Brooklyn scavenger, talk about value is a way of reclaiming the disappearing ghetto. Similarly, for Superfly, a homeless panhandler in Norfolk, talk about value exposes how newness is a mark of progress and civility, while the old needs to be discarded. In both places, trash is evidence of a problem in need of fixing or of space, and people in need of cleaning. However, through situated talk about the value of trash and trashiness, both Sal and Superfly challenge the idea that all transfor- mations to the urban landscape are inevitable. Moreover, living through the consequences of racialized betterment, Sal and Superfly, connected by their laboring on space, race, and time tell stories of how, as people and objects are laid to waste, they use their knowledge of devaluation to make a place (even if temporary) for themselves while being displaced. In this article, I argue that “trash talk”4—talk about the value of “trash”—reveals structures of power pro- ducing working-class proximity to trash.

Like trash, gentrification is often treated as something we know when we see. But the obviousness of gentrification, like the obviousness of trash, is upended by ethnographic attention. Drawing on Black Marxist theories of racial capitalism5 and feminist and Marxist geographers,6 I write against the epistemological violence of environmental racism, exposing how racial capital- ism constructs environments that render those marginalized by these processes illegitimate knowers and speakers of their histories and geographies. I bring this literature into conversation with the anthropology of gentrification7 and the anthropology of trash8 in order to show how discourses of “blight” obscure racial capitalism’s uneven geography and naturalize the “need” for betterment through gentrification. In this context, “trash” becomes the obvious material evidence required to enroll neighborhoods and cities into a teleological narra- tive (from worse to betterment, from black poverty to upward mobility). Drawing on anthropological critiques of time,9 I show that gentrification posi- tions black places as always “behind” and thus always susceptible to a violent wrenching into the (cleaner, whiter) future. If descriptions of “blighted” land- scapes are littered with black bodies, decrepit buildings, and trash, this article argues that this way of seeing the materiality of black places is not self-evident, but produced through how gentrification arranges and rearranges the matters of waste, who it matters to, and how.

Zoning and Scavenging

Just before dawn on a Thursday in March 2012, the same year that plans to rezone north Bed-Stuy were approved over community objections,10 Sal and his crew of scavengers headed out to locate a new demolition site in the rapidly- transforming landscape. As an ex-New York City fireman and gut-demolition worker, Sal was well-versed in the patterns of destruction and construction

78 ILWCH, 95, Spring 2019

that rezoning projects would bring. Growing up black and working-class in Bed-Stuy in the 1970s and 1980s during the fire epidemic ravaging the South Bronx, Bed-Stuy, and Brownsville, Sal was aware of how state disinvestment in black spaces would result in neighborhood transformation. In fact, Sal could predict when a building was going to come down. He’d walk down a street with private street cleaners, or see a local pharmacy close its doors, and shake his head, “There she goes.” Capitalizing on knowledge borne out of years of living and working under state-sanctioned racism, he created a business scavenging disinvested and discarded spaces. He “saw how things were being turned into junk but [he] knew it was gold.” “Hell,” he’d say, “I was one of the guys gutting these buildings and I would pull these fixtures out and think, ‘Look at this molding, I’m holding black history!’” Not unlike the impulse to become a fireman in a dispossessing time, he began salvaging what was left of the ghetto. After retiring as a firefighter in 1995 and as a demolition-man a few years after that, he opened a shop in 1999. A “junk” shop.

As Sal, his scavengers, and I walked along Fulton Street, Bed-Stuy’s central commercial corridor, pushing a cart to transport the fruits of our scavenging, Sal pointed out the new silver garbage cans that had sprouted since the rezoning. Embossed around the lip in blue: “Bed-Stuy Clean and Proud.” The trash cans iconified the newly-minted public-private partnership between Community Board 3 and the Business Improvement District (BID), Bed-Stuy Gateway. In response to the recently-released NYC scorecards11 of Bed-Stuy’s streets, for which the neighborhood gained the rap of “Pigsty Bed-Stuy,” The Bed-Stuy Gateway sanitation and surveillance team re-routed litter along Fulton to make Bed-Stuy “desirable.” The data collected in the scorecard program, which measures and reports street and sidewalk cleanliness, is often used by BIDs and other urban renewal programs as “evidence” to justify neighborhood development and betterment. As the Bed-Stuy Gateway website remarked of its private waste-management crew, “Your safety is our number one priority.” Making the elision between cleanliness and safety that the surveillance of clean-up commands, the BID assures residents of its capability to surveil many kinds of waste: “Our [sanitation] team uses technology to manage the Fulton-Nostrand commercial corridor […] in partnership with the NYPD in order to address quality of life issues and deter crimes.” But the collapsing power constitutive of trash as a category pulls waste as metaphor (social disor- der, deviance, criminality) and waste as material objects (litter and debris) in proximity, if not a metonymic relationship, with one another. While this privately-owned trash can spoke to a future Bed-Stuy that would be clean and safe, it could not account for the uptick in objects on the street, which were accumulating rapidly with the demolition and construction of new apart- ments spurred by gentrification, nor could it protect the people long-since evicted, whose discarded lives we were about to scavenge.

On this spring morning, the two-story pre-war building we were standing in front of was intact. A giant tarp partially covered a sunken-in wall in the struc- ture’s side caused by damage to the adjacent building. Empty for nearly six

“The Ghetto is a Gold Mine” 79

months, a suspicious fire had collapsed that building’s roof in the middle of the night. In the manner of all cascading changes, damage to the neighboring struc- ture leaked through to damage this one: A burst pipe soaked through the insu- lated wall between buildings, causing the weight imbalance now pulling the building akimbo. Sal suspected that the building had been intentionally damaged because the property owner refused to sell. Repudiating the landlord’s stubbornness, Sal cautions:

“Look, you have to be careful with these things. I understand why the owner held out for so long, but you have to be careful in these negotiations with developers. If they’ve already bought more than one building, and in this case, I think they’ve got the majority of the block, and you still refuse to sell, you have to understand that they’re going to get you out no matter what. You gotta try and cut the very best deal before they smoke you out.”

“Literally,” I said. “Literally,” he echoed. Sal was positive that the fire was set on the developers’ behalf because the owner was holding up the project. “You might be too young to remember but the Bronx was on fire in the seventies.” Charting the violent flow of spatial transformation, he continued, “Now it’s Bed-Stuy. Soon it’ll be Brownsville.”

Sal walked around the scaffolding, making sure the building was stable enough for us all to go in. During a prior trip, Sal had determined that the build- ing was safe and that it had materials worth scavenging. Sometimes you can find intact personal effects, but normally visiting these sites is about scavenging struc- tural elements like doors, molding, and iron beams. Sal knew how to make friends with everyone, which made it easy for him to bring rented trucks around to transport larger objects—pieces of the building, furniture—back to his shop. Given that this building was still standing, there was a good chance that there were salvageable personal effects, according to Sal. On this day, the goal was seeing what small treasures lay in the rubble of eviction.

Giving us the okay, Sal popped open the old lock on the front door and carefully navigated the temporary structure supporting the second floor. In the dark, we crawled up the stairs on our stomachs and, standing now, we lined up behind Sal in front of the second-floor door. He took out a flashlight and a pair of keys.12 The person who had lived here had been forced out so quickly that there was no time or point in trying to “sell” her furniture. She left her keys with a friend, a fellow churchgoer, instructing her to let people know that if they could manage to carry anything out, they should take it. Sal waited a few days: “In situations like these, we at least wait until it smells a little funky in there and it’s too difficult for other people to get things out.”

We opened the door into the pitch darkness of four o’clock on a spring morning, just before dawn. The power had been shut off and the tarp over the building covered the windows. We all turned on our flashlights. There were papers scattered on the floor and dust on every surface. My skin felt damp as the smell of wet plaster, metal, and wood wafted over me, only to be

80 ILWCH, 95, Spring 2019

overtaken by the sweet twinge of putrefying organic waste that settled in after we closed the door. There were a few garbage bags stuffed with clothes in the corner of the two-room apartment, “maybe someone is coming back for those, let’s leave them.” I obeyed. Sal’s scavengers took one room and I fol- lowed behind Sal, observing how he moved through this dark and empty—yet filled of life—space. First, he scanned the two-room apartment as if reading the structure and discards to determine where to start. Then, he headed towards the tiny kitchen and opened the cupboards. “Ah, yup, that’s what I thought,” as if he knew the dishes were going to be there. “Come on, help me look at these,” he instructed. “How did you know there were gunna be dishes in here?” I asked. Sal explains:

“Well, did you see that huge mirror in the other room? And that heavy desk? Those things were not left just because they were too big. Whoever was here def- initely could have gotten them out. No, they’re still here ‘cuz they’re too heavy. Normally that means that the dishes are here too. A box full of glass and porcelain like dishes or cups are too heavy to move quickly, so people … take one or two of things so they can eat, maybe a pot or two so they can cook, and then try to grab the small things that they are attached to.”

In the way that he surveyed the rooms and read the objects, Sal showed how what has been left behind is evidence of not just what happened but also how quickly and violently it happened.

While Sal redirects the flow in the dismembered ghetto, this flow is shaped by the spatial legacies of racial capitalism13 in Bed-Stuy: redlining and its contin- ued production of de facto racial segregation. The 1934 National Housing Act (NHA) established the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), consolidating the first national housing program. In the wake of the transformation of laws governing access to housing and home loans, The Home Owners Lending Corporation (HOLC) created “residential security maps” for the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. These maps documented lending risk and desirability, making it easier for banks to predict (if not produce) mortgage rates appropriate to the urban property-owning population. The NHA was a response to the eco- nomic collapse during The Great Depression, which had not only created a banking crisis but also a significant drop in home loans and ownership. The New Deal sought to re-make the failing economy by creating a more accessible homeownership market.14 Creating a more “accessible” market, however, also relied on the devaluation of black spaces.

Racist renting practices15 predating the FHA were newly justified and materialized in emergent accounting, actuarial, and mapping practices attaching financial “risk” to black and ethnically mixed neighborhoods, while white urban (and suburban) neighborhoods were deemed desirable and stable investments. HOLC maps zoned neighborhoods on a color-coded grading system from A (green, desirable) to D (red, risky), thus earning that practice the moniker “red- lining.” The HOLC had no reason—outside of racism—to assume that black

“The Ghetto is a Gold Mine” 81

homeowners were high-risk borrowers. Yet, by designating black neighbor- hoods as a priori risky, it set in motion a process of devaluing black spaces by making resident investment impossible—setting up the conditions for the kind of land devaluation that would make lending a financial risk and re-zoning a necessary tool for “bettering” the ’hood. Redlined Bed-Stuy would become one of these historically-black-and-mixed neighborhoods across the country to experience the cascading consequences of this policy.16 Disproportionately indebted to high-interest subprime loans, when black families could get loans at all, these historical spatial patterns of value production helped set the condi- tions for the 2008 mortgage crisis.17

The segregation of Bed-Stuy resulted in many forms of disinvestment, including infrequent trash pick-up. Sanitation districts were zoned as if to quar- antine a growing black population by suffocating the neighborhood with its own waste. As the 1962 protest “Operation Clean Sweep,” organized by Bed-Stuy residents, suggests, redlining and other forms of ghettoization also produce proximity to waste. But the neighborhood of 1962, mostly black residents who owned their homes,18 resisted the equation of blackness with filth. The group not only organized a neighborhood cleanup, they took that trash and dumped it on City Hall’s steps, in response to Sanitation Commissioner Frank J. Lucia’s unwillingness to address the New York Department of Sanitation’s (DSNY) neglect of the neighborhood. The group protested the (un)sanitary conditions of Bed-Stuy as racist, but they were up against the on-its-face race- neutral spatial logic of sanitation districts, which determined the frequency of trash collection. Together, redlining and the districting of Bed-Stuy had allowed the DSNY to ignore that the population had increased three-fold since the 1930s, and, as a result, needed to be redistricted. But because sanita- tion districting maps do not look like they have anything to do with race, the DSNY could argue that Bed-Stuy was dirty not because it was intentionally neglected, but because its own residents were to blame.19 The organized protest made an example out of Bed-Stuy’s racialized proximity to trash and challenged who was “at fault” for the trashy conditions.20 However, as the recent sanitation scorecards would suggest, “clean-up” is a project that contin- ually imposes ideas about civility and order: Trash is both an index of backward- ness and a justification for (eventual) redevelopment. Thus, as the land-value logic of racial capitalism re-positioned Bed-Stuy from left behind to desirable, Bed-Stuy’s “trash” turned from something proximate to blackness to something displaceable like blackness, so that Bed-Stuy could be admitted into a white gen- trified future.

Racial capitalism devalues black space just as racial biopolitics devalue black life21. In these intertwined processes of devaluation, Bed-Stuy as a space peopled and produced by blackness is turned into an anachronistic arti- fact, not a place with a black future. Sal abutted this way of seeing as he gutted buildings to the refrain, “I’m holding Bed-Stuy’s history in my hands.” Taking stock of racialized material and spatial regimes, Sal responded to how gentrification reframes the materiality of Bed-Stuy as something to be bettered:

82 ILWCH, 95, Spring 2019

“As pieces of the projects come down and housing for white people go up, our homes are turned into junk. But really, the ghetto is a gold mine.”

Doors and Boundaries

The processes, maps, redlining, and social relations that bind and border Bed-Stuy shape how objects can move from trash to treasure. Back at Sal’s shop, “junk” resonated differently, emblematic of how things transform. The things that can be scavenged mark the racialized history of land use and how changes to land use (rezoning) rearrange whose bodies produce value. The rapid construction of “market-rate” apartments in the heart of the ghetto (near the Marcy Projects) brought on by the 2007 rezoning of south Bed-Stuy resulted in an influx of young, white, and upwardly-mobile residents, not only changing the landscape of Bed-Stuy but black residents’ relationship with their tree-lined neighbor Clinton Hill. And in Sal’s shop, the way that objects moved in and out of the category of “trash”22 points to the conditions that make the boundaries between Clinton Hill and Bed-Stuy matter.

Sal always insisted his “junk” told the history of Bed-Stuy, even though according to municipal maps, Bed-Stuy did not start until at least a block west of the shop.23 According to Sal, the line between Clinton Hill and Bed-Stuy was like the distinction between trash and treasure, “If you have power, you can call it whatever you want. If you don’t have power, like you and me,” refer- ring to our shared black history, “you have to defend what is yours.”

In the 1990s, when Sal first acquired the spot that became his shop, Bed-Stuy was portrayed as a dirty and dangerous place. The public discussion of city safety justifying intervention as “cleaning up” the city elided racialized conditions of poverty. “A cleaner city is a safer city,” Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said at a news conference in 1994. He continued:

“That’s something that everyone instinctually understands. And something we have to make a big part of our efforts to improve the quality of life in our city. In a big city like this all of us have to learn how to respect the rights and property of others.”24

By arguing that “dirtiness” signified disrespect for property rights, Giuliani showed how racial capitalism shapes policing priorities. Mayor Giuliani’s anti- black racism, embedded in anti-graffiti, Stop and Frisk, and broken windows policing, used criminological theory to conflate “dirtiness” with deviance. Broken windows policing asserts that infrastructural decline is due not to poverty and state-sanctioned neglect, but to immorality and criminality. Thus, the problem with poor black people is that they are insufficiently respectful of the value of property: They steal it, they deface it, they misuse it.25 Cleaning up poor neighborhoods licensed the indiscriminate policing of poor black bodies—because it was black people, after all, that caused black spaces to be dirty in the first place.

“The Ghetto is a Gold Mine” 83

The ideological and aesthetic equation whereby “dirtiness” signifies devi- ance made Bed-Stuy’s boundaries a point of contestation between the city and the community. If Bed-Stuy was most notably characterized by the racist rhetoric of the 1980s crack epidemic, which described the neighborhood as ravaged by illicit drug circulation and moral deviance, then the border with Clinton Hill, a middle-class neighborhood with clean, respectable, property owners, emblematized the demarcation between “progress” and “black back- wardness.” Sal’s insistence decades later that his shop was in Bed-Stuy and not Clinton Hill marks the refusal to be “transformed” despite the processes of gentrification that pushed against the neighborhood border.

Sal’s reclaiming of Bed-Stuy through scavenging and his refusal to adhere to “new” neighborhood boundaries, even as he capitalized on the discards wrought by gentrification, points to the complicated ways in which marginalized people in Bed-Stuy use their knowledge of racism to make a place while being displaced. If redlining is a socio-material process that distributes risk and reward with durable consequences, gentrification is a process that effaces black material histories by rewriting what matter matters. As gentrification asserts that geo- graphic borders make neighborhoods what they are, scavengers like Sal assert that what makes a neighborhood might be something else altogether.

“Doors are the key to Brooklyn,” Sal says, showing me around his shop. “With all of this brownstone retrofitting going on, or whatever it’s called, the market, right now, is all about doors.” Spread out across the back section of the shop were doors, doors upon doors upon doors. Different sizes, different materials, different colors. A lot of the guys that worked for Sal just stripped and sanded doors. Sometimes they used varnish, sometimes they stripped them down and repainted them. They polished doorknobs and tightened and replaced old screws. They stripped years of paint off hinges and polished them until they shone, oiling them to loosen up layers of rust. They measured the widths and lengths and organized them by size.

One day, while I was observing the work on the doors, Marvin, one of the scavengers, approached inquisitively, joking: “What is a girl like you doing in a place like this?” “I’m doing research about reusing trash in Brooklyn.”

“Oh, this isn’t trash, baby. This, here, what Sal does, is collecting history. If these doors could talk, could you imagine the stories that they would tell? Seriously, how many of these door handles you think Biggie touched? Man, I remember when this neighborhood was just black people. There was music, oh, the music! People would sit out on the block and dance and talk. Sure, there were drugs and guns, but you weren’t in danger unless you didn’t belong here. Anyway, these doors, it’s amazing how they were doors, opening and closing into black people’s lives. Now, well, you know, now they’re just decorations for white people. It’s like they are putting themselves on display. Don’t get me wrong, I ain’t no racist, I just think that this fuddy-duddy way of living where you don’t even care that these doors came from people who were forced to leave is just plain racist.”

84 ILWCH, 95, Spring 2019

The racialized circuits along which these doors traveled was not accidental. The shop was full of doors that closed on black lives only to become decoration for whites. Doors mark both borders and openings. Their circulation and appropri- ation move through a route produced by racial capitalism, which not only expro- priates black labor,26 but turns blackness into a commodity when it is moved out of “the ghetto” and into adornment. This process of cultural appropriation devalues racialized people, turning their labor and history into artifacts of a lost exotic other.27 Bed-Stuy’s dismembered material history is not valuable to new residents because it tells the story of how redlining, segregation, policing, and state disinvestment have made these objects available through demolition. Rather, Bed-Stuy’s materiality, produced by but disentangled from black history, becomes valuable for retrofitting and “preserving” “old New York”— an old New York curiously without a racial identity, or, more precisely, an imag- inary “old New York” in which Bed-Stuy was always white.

Marvin’s commentary on closing the doors of black livelihood in Bed-Stuy also suggests how objects signify neighborhoods in and out of time. Gentrification is a way that racial capitalism brings neighborhoods in decline into (present) time,28 despite reproducing the same structural problem that created degradation in the first place.29 If black neighborhoods are made to decay through racist urban planning practices and the devaluation of black property, then blackness is not only made anachronistic (until appropriated by and through whiteness), blackness seems to adhere to objects and environ- ments left to die. It is this racialized temporality that conditions and shapes the way black spaces—the objects and people within them—are managed as places with no future on its own terms. By implying there was a different time when he belonged, Marvin implied that he is left out of the present. The current neighborhood may utilize the same objects, but they are re- arrangements of a past moment—a moment that was his. Because of the way things have changed over time, it was no longer his place.

In and Out of Time

In Virginia, references to north and south are not only spatial, but temporal. The North’s rapid “progress” outpaces the South’s slow-moving inertia. The South isn’t just a region, it lags behind. Take NYC Mayor Giuliani’s brazen remarks, whose closing of the infamous landfill Fresh Kills, sedimented a long-standing relationship between NYC’s trash and Virginia’s landfills:

“We don’t have room here to handle the garbage produced not just by New Yorkers, but by the 3 million more people that come here, that utilize the place everyday […] People in Virginia like to utilize New York because we’re a cultural center, because we’re a business center.”30

While for NYC the closing of Fresh Kills was another mark of “progress,” Giuliani’s explanation was made possible by the ideology of an “uncultured”

“The Ghetto is a Gold Mine” 85

South that lags behind Northern times. In remarking on the increased flow of waste from NYC to Virginia, Giuliani implied that Virginia was doing its part to make sure that NYC remained a national treasure. Insofar as cheap land helps determine where waste “belongs,” Virginia preserves NYC by acting as its dumping grounds, and, by extension, its discarded past. But even as Virginia is supposed to be grateful (or, at least, virtuous) for receiving NYC’s trash, clean-up is a national discourse about transformation and improvement. And if southeastern Virginia was positioned as the natural resting place for what NYC cast off, the region doubled down on clean-up as surveillance as if to signal: We can be modern, too.

Seeking to understand how waste flows affect transformations in Norfolk, Virginia—a city in the region importing NYC trash—I met Superfly, a local pan- handler described by passersby as the city’s “trashy” leftovers. Out of the windows of their cars people would yell to us (a black woman and a homeless white man) as we walked Norfolk’s deserted streets, “fucking white trash,” and “I thought we already cleaned up this city.” Constantly displaced by the private investment that had transformed the historically black city into one that Superfly and others would characterize as “clean and white,” I learned quickly, in step with the routes made through Superfly’s laboring of discarded objects, that the sprawling gentrification of southern development means that walking is a mark of poverty, if not criminality. That Superfly could represent a past state of the city to its own residents—a past characterized by poverty, crime, and filth—was indicative of how city clean-up projects meant the eradica- tion of the poor through disappearance.

This logic of disappearance also shapes how waste moves from NYC streets to the bowels of the nation’s not-so-secret history of slave plantations and Jim Crow. Virginia, riddled with the history of expropriated black labor, has a spatial history with environmental consequences, including the production of soil-depleted former plantations as a place of cheap sprawling land, a resource for waste facility siting.31 As Norfolk became clean and white, the poor and black cities surrounding it, Suffolk and Portsmouth, became the sites of new facilities for NYC’s waste. And those cities cannot become part of the future until and unless they are enrolled in betterment.

Like Sal and Marvin, Superfly used discarded objects to reclaim spaces from which he had been displaced. As space stands in for time in discourses of north and south, so too is Superfly’s out-of-place-ness expressed as “out of time.” If sanitizing the South’s dirty history in part entails cleaning up public spaces, this process also makes the southern urban landscape “in time” by bring- ing the South into the present. Thus, as remnant, as “white trash,” Superfly is anachronistic. Walking through the cleaned-up landscape, Superfly told me he’s an alien:

“My story begins during WWII. My father was a mathematician. He was asked to work on the Manhattan Project and develop […] for the atomic bomb. He was involved in purifying the uranium used in the first atomic bomb according to

86 ILWCH, 95, Spring 2019

Project Y—the document commission for the making of the atomic bomb. But nevertheless, it is interesting or ironic that my father was also a U.S. naval officer who was off the coast of Japan the day the Americans dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. My father entered Ground Zero within 48-hours after the atomic bomb was dropped, [the bomb that started] the most highly radioactive gamma wave nucleus that had yet to dissipate, thus causing a transmutation to my father’s genetic chromosome genome. Years later after WWII when my father got a glioma in his eye—I told you, I use a little bit of humor here—his nuclear propelled spermazoa met my mother’s egg that was to become my genetic chromosomal genome zygot and was radioactive and transmu- tated, I’ve extrapolated that I’m a highly evolved divergent species. I have no rela- tionship to man’s last known ancestor, the prima primate, nor do I have a relationship to all that has come before us humans. I’ve jumped over eons of evo- lution, many years into the future.”

Being out of human-evolutionary time, Superfly used his knowledge of Norfolk’s spatial history, with the largest naval base in the country, and how it has transformed to exclude him. Instead of understanding himself as belonging to the present, he drew on an alternative temporality to explain his experience of not belonging in this time, or in this Virginia.

But as Sal’s labor exposes in Brooklyn, present geographies are not self- evident, they are shaped and produced by whose labor counts as making or pro- gressing towards “the future.” Superfly’s autobiographical narrative, which pivots around WWII, is worth noting here, not only because of the military’s ubiquity as a path towards economic security, but because WWII brought massive urban transformation through “slum clearance” projects. These projects were touted as “renewal” and undertaken at the expense of black and immi- grant communities who had labored to make a place for themselves in the face of displacement. While on the one hand, Superfly’s narrative marks him as not belonging, on the other hand, it points to the multiple and intersecting histories that shaped Norfolk’s present racial geographies and material transformations.

Theories of time are not only spatial, they are racial. If narratives of time are used to tell a story about racial progress, then it also matters that out-of-time-ness marks Superfly’s poverty as an aberration of whiteness. Storytelling is a way of inscribing the history of places when particular pasts are not only unmarked and un-memorialized in urban landscapes, but rendered unremarkable.32 Superfly’s use of the past is a way of justifying why he was “still here” when so many others were gone:

“You know, things really use to be different around here. But everyone’s gone except me. You use to be able to go down to the port and get all kinds of drugs and have a good time you know but there’s just cops waiting for you. They aren’t even cops, they’re like the clean police or something. People say I’m crazy but I’ve seen some bad shit down there. It’s hard to move around now for

“The Ghetto is a Gold Mine” 87

guy like me. And I’m scared. I’m scared of being sedentary. I like to walk all the time. I hussle, I’m hussler. Matter a fact I fashion my life around, I don’t know if you’ve ever heard of Curtis Mayfield, Superfly? I am Superfly. ‘Superfly, gunna make your fortune by and by, if you lose you do or die’. I need to move and I fashion my life around it. It’s weird for people, I know, seeing me walk around and they think ‘oh there goes some dirty crazy guy’ and maybe I am crazy but I didn’t get there alone!”

As racialized and classed uplift, cleaning projects shape the present paths along which Superfly was allowed to move. His dirtiness made it difficult to “take up space”; yet it was also his dirtiness that marked him as improperly white. Superfly’s whiteness made him unlike the poor people of color who have been displaced from Norfolk (to a different city), because being poor and a person of color is not exceptional. Their poverty is planned for in cities, natural- ized in places like Suffolk—the ghetto—where black people “belong.” Because Superfly was white, however, his poverty was exceptional.33 In the “moderniz- ing” South, there is nowhere “natural” to which he belonged. As white trash, Superfly was excluded from Norfolk’s “progress”—when progress is signified by white exclusivity and white exclusivity, in turn, is predicated on distance from poverty, assumed to be inherent to blackness.

Though Superfly’s poverty was constantly re-inscribed, it was his whiteness that made his poverty peculiar in Norfolk. If Norfolk’s successful gentrification has effectively cleaned up the city, and if cleaning is always a racialized project, then it was Superfly’s whiteness that both let him remain in Norfolk and made him an anomaly. In White Trash, Nancy Isenberg argues that class was not always thought of as a social construct. In fact, throughout the nineteenth century, the widespread belief that class was congenital34 authorized eugenicist support for social “cleaning” projects, including quarantines for the poor and the mass sterilization of women of color.35 Though women of color were seen as contagious in their own right36 (namely, in their deviant sexuality), poor whites (and white women in particular), or “white trash,” were seen as polluting the “white race” and, by extension, the species. White poverty may not be understood in contemporary Norfolk as something under the skin, but it is treated as something that is passed on, and sometimes, passed on by the city itself (the slums, the trash, are contagious).

“Walking Dirty”

As racial spatial transformations determine what ought to be discarded, the things and people moving out and moving within point to how racialized class relations build, define, and surveil space. The slum-cleared city epitomized the deepening of Jim Crow segregation and racist urban renewal programs with durable materialities in Virginia. While southeastern Virginia, the region in which Norfolk is located, continues to be the second largest importer of waste in the nation, Norfolk’s successful gentrification secured itself through the

88 ILWCH, 95, Spring 2019

continuous displacement of its material waste onto its post-industrial neighbor- ing cities (Suffolk and Portsmouth), while also surveilling the contagious people “within.”

“Waste Watch,” a Norfolk community partnership between sanitation and policing, authorized sanitation workers to “remove” blight from public space (by which they mean homeless persons and sex workers), identify theft (of waste objects on the street and panhandling), and stop vandalism (including graffiti). This form of “watching waste” defines poverty in proximity to waste in all its forms (from social deviance to litter) and ensures that poverty is consid- ered a threat to cleanliness as a racial spatial order.

Upheld through policing and the selective use of Begging Ordinances, forms of managing waste expose spatial “order” (who belongs where), what and who is being turned into a “waste problem,” and how “waste” is allowed to move. Not unlike the elision of safety and sanitation used by the Bed-Stuy BID, municipal ordinances around “street” labor managed poverty in Norfolk. More often than not, municipal codes that criminalize poverty37 are called upon to justify the removal of homeless “blight”38 from “public” space.39 Being outside for Superfly was a direct affront to the clean-up programs that sought to move him out of sight and out of (at least Norfolk’s) mind. In fact, “walking dirty”—as he would sometimes refer to panhandling—was not just about describing how people viewed his poverty as “out of place” in the land- scape, it was also an insistence that he understood, claimed, and used his out-of-place-ness to make his own place.

Carefully navigating the downtown district, Superfly taught me how to move. Concentrated with financial buildings and surrounded by two and three-story res- idences just beyond the edges of the bank district, most of the streets were tree- lined and wide, suggesting that the neighborhood was built for walking. “Why is it so empty here?” I asked, as we walked, slightly disturbed by the idyllic yet ghostly space. “Nobody walks here,” he responds, slightly riled up by the question, “they walk from Starbucks to their cars, and from their cars to work. Walking means that you’re poor. Walking means you’re dirty.” Over and over again, I was amazed by the empty streets, devoid of pedestrians but lined with cars.

The rejuvenated blocks of downtown, part of Norfolk’s 2014 Downtown Improvement District (DID), were covered in a specialized graffiti-resistant coating. As Superfly taught me to move cautiously through the downtown, quar- antined by accusatory stares and racial and classed epithets hurled out the widows of cars, he would point out the vest-wearing crew pressure-washing the empty streets. The DID not only covered these revitalized districts in mate- rials that reproduce the aesthetics of civility, they employed “Clean Team Ambassadors” to parole and wash the streets. Waste Watch and the private Clean Team Ambassadors did the work of “providing assistance to the Norfolk Police Department, offering security escorts and maintaining a clean urban environment through a comprehensive program of sidewalk cleaning, pressure washing, graffiti removal.”40 Turning down one street or another, care- fully patrolling how he was patrolled, Superfly’s movements expose how the

“The Ghetto is a Gold Mine” 89

DID named waste in ways that slipped from graffiti to bodies, for it was not merely tagging that was easily removed from the glossy bricks, but the homeless and poor people who “linger too long” are obviously out of place, and are washed—or pushed—away.

Superfly moved cautiously through the DID, never staying still long enough to be forcibly removed, although the specter of Clean Team Ambassador polic- ing meant that he was always pushing himself along. His travels frequently included a stop at Bean There, a coffee shop in the DID that discarded their old magazines once a month. As one of the few coffee shops in Norfolk that offered the New Yorker and other “cultured” magazines, this was an important stop on Superfly’s itinerary. Superfly, who resold the magazines and books he scavenged to other local shops, understood that the New Yorker not only had a particular class readership; it had an aesthetic, “committed to looking uncom- mitted and pretentious, all at the same time.” As we walked into the coffee shop, he poked fun at its aesthetics:

“[The walls are painted] three kinds of blue, to be suggestive of the [Chesapeake] Bay. But the confounding thing is that the water is outside. Just go outside! But nobody actually walks around here anymore. And the furniture is eclectic, or at least, it is supposed to give off that vibe, but look at this chair handle, this isn’t really old, it was distressed by a machine, not time. Please, all of this came from Bed Bath and Beyond or something like that. I don’t understand why people want things that look old. If you want something old, go find it!”

Laughing as he signaled for me to order a coffee while he searched through the magazines that they were about to recycle, he said, “But hey, this nonsense keeps me in business, so …”

While Bean There may not be a place for a poor man, their garbage was still valuable. Superfly resold these magazines to black barbershops and nail salons—businesses whose presence in the newly-white and upwardly-mobile district was itself precarious. In this gentrified southern landscape, Superfly redi- rected the flow of objects destined for displacement, out of the waste-bin and into new kinds of circulation.

At one of the barbershops where Superfly sold magazines, a barber talked to me about the neighborhood: “I use to live in New York where people really went to barber shops, you know, all kinds of people. I made good money. But the city just got to me. I like it better down here. Things move slower, there’s more room, you know. Problem is, white people don’t go to barber shops and the black people keep disappearing. I just appreciate that Superfly keeps me in mag- azines. At least he knows what’s up!”

Waste and Time

Attendant to how things are made to degrade, being careful not to assume that what is degraded for some may just be what it’s like to be “the other,” this article

90 ILWCH, 95, Spring 2019

has focused on how those dispossessed by the call to “clean up,” “better,” and “gentrify,” labor on, with, and through objects discarded by transformation. I have argued that “trash talk”—talk about the value of “trash”—reveals struc- tures of power producing working-class proximity to trash. While those who labor are undoubtedly subject to how the language of waste is used to denigrate, this article points to the complex power dynamics within which my informants theorized the spatializations of race and time that bind and define their work, their homes, and their histories. By focusing on the objects and people whose value(s) are called into question as the context around them changes, I show how dispossessed waste laborers—through which I refer to the illicit labor of pan-handling and scavenging—name the power relations that circumscribe changes that turn objects, people, histories, and labor into waste.

Gentrification makes trash a discursive and material index of degeneration, mobilizing projects to “clean” and “better” neighborhoods and people. Implicit in the process that gentrification makes visible is how racial capitalism, through its attributions of racialized value, produces waste—objects and people— through force. But this spatial process is not only racial, it is temporal. By turning black spaces into places that “need” bettering, black spatial and material histories are forcibly relegated to a backward past, treated as impediments to a “better,” whiter future. Embedded in this racialized temporality is the presump- tion that black places inherently have no future of their own (unless or until enrolled in white betterment). But as Sal and Superfly make clear, whiteness not only restricts how people are allowed to move, find and make value, it often effaces and delimits the possibilities for present or future(s) otherwise.

The violence of this racialized teleological framework makes trash adhere to blackness and poverty in particular ways. For Superfly, it is his white poverty that makes trash a resource. Unlike poor people of color who have been dis- placed from Norfolk, for whom their conditions are “natural,” Superfly’s expe- riences emblematize the way whiteness is constructed through class, eschewing the white working class and poor as inappropriately white. His whiteness, however, also makes it possible for him to continue to act and direct circulations within Norfolk, where poor people of color have more or less disappeared. Superfly’s work also shows us how tenuously blackness is allowed in Norfolk: the barber shops that no one really goes to as a site of re-directed flow. His labor also allows us to see what kind of value whiteness makes possible, in, for example, the New Yorkers that Superfly redirected. Unlike Sal in Brooklyn, where it was a black neighborhood’s structural history that could be revalued from trash to treasure, in gentrified Norfolk it was the discards of upward mobility.

When I returned from Virginia in 2016, I went to visit Sal’s shop, looking forward to finding refuge in our shared blackness. Though he had withstood the pressure for over twenty years, Sal had finally been bought out. What used to be Sal’s shop, a chaotic but inviting space, had been closed off and sealed by a frosted-glass window. From the street, I could see the sleek, minimal- ist inside, a far cry from the space once populated by objects whose lives Sal was

“The Ghetto is a Gold Mine” 91

eager to share. Heartbroken at the realization that I would probably never see Sal again, I hear his words run through my mind, but this time the loss of Sal weighted the words differently: “The ghetto is a gold mine.”

NOTES

1. Jeremiah Moss, “New Yorkers Need to Take Back Their City,” New York Times, April 13, 2014. Accessed on 1 June 2018.

2. As capital seeks to reproduce itself through property investment and land value, the capacity to control and define “improvements” to land is taken out of poor communities’ hands. (Neil Smith, “Toward a Theory of Gentrification: A Back to the City Movement by Capital, Not People.” Journal of American Planning Association 45, 4 (1979): 538–48).

3. David Harvey, The Right to the City (New York, 2008). 4. Emily McKee argues insightfully that moralizing discourses naturalize and link poor

landscapes with imaginations of disorder and lawlessness in southern Israel. In this context, “Trash Talk” refers to similar patterns of segregation within state building processes that rely on the naturalization of “the other” as dirty or as producers of waste. Here, however, I am using “trash talk” to refer specifically to how those naturalized by the discourse that degrades them as outside of a state—or in this case, outside a neighborhood-building project—talk about discarded objects in order to talk about systemic degradation at the hands of the state. By focus- ing on how those naturalized as dirty labor the objects discarded by powerful projects, we can see the real contours and effects of larger systems on individual and community labor. Emily McKee, “Trash Talk: Interpreting Morality and Disorder in Negev/Naqab Landscapes,” Current Anthropology 56, 5 (2015): 733–52.

5. Cedric Robinson, Black Marxism: The Making of a Black Radical Tradition (Chapel Hill, NC, 1983).

6. Jacqueline N. Brown, Dropping Anchor Setting Sail: Geographies of Race in Black Liverpool (Princeton, NJ, 2005); Katherine McKittrick, Demonic Grounds: Black Women and the Cartography of Struggle (Minneapolis, 2006); Rashad Shabazz, Spatializing Blackness: Architects of Confinement and Black Masculinity (Chicago, 2015).

7. I rely on the theoretical interventions of black urban anthropologists like Steven Gregory and Robin Kelley who, as Marxists scholars, emphasize conditions. For black Marxists, terms like “the politics of blight” and “infrapolitics” point to the structural production of urban segregation, as opposed to the re-inscription of structural inequalities through descrip- tions of poor landscapes. (See: Steven Gregory, Black Corona (Princeton, NJ, 1998) and Robin Kelley, Race Rebels: Culture, Politics, and the Black Working Class (New York, 1994)).

8. Recently, many anthropology scholars have been interested in the relationship between waste and infrastructure (see: Robin Nagle, Picking Up: On the streets and behind the trucks with the sanitation workers of New York City (New York City, 2010)); the relationship between waste and value (see: Gayle Hawkins, Culture and Waste: The creation and destruction of value (Lanham, 2003), Edward Humes, Garbology: Our dirty love affair with trash (New York, 2012), Kaveri Gill, Of Poverty and Plastic (Oxford, 2010)); the ontology of waste (see: Greg Kennedy, An Ontology of Trash: The disposable and it’s problematic nature (Albany, NY, 2007), Tim Choy, Ecologies of Comparison: An ethnography of endangerment in Hong Kong, (Durham, NC, 2011)); and the materiality of waste (see: MJ Hird, “Knowing Waste: Toward an Inhuman Epistemology,” Social Epistemology 26, 3–4,(2012): 453–69; Zsuzsa Gille, From the Cult of Waste to the Trash Heap of History: They politics of waste in socialist and postsocialist Hungary (Bloomington, IN, 2013); Tadeusz Rachwal, Rubbish, Waste and Litter (Warsaw, 2008); William Rathje, Rubbish! The archeology of garbage (Tucson, AR, 2001)). Less attention has been paid to the epistemological conditions waste makes and its relationship to biopolitics and racial capitalism.

9. Fabian famously argued that anthropology has been shaped by constructing “the other” as either outside of time or in a different time than the time shared with the ethnographer (Johannes Fabian, Time and The Other: How anthropology makes its object (New York, 1983). While considerations of temporality shape the discipline (see: Edward Said, Orientalism (New York, 1979), Alfred Gell, The Anthropology of Time: Cultural constructions of temporal maps and images (Oxford, 1992), Michelle Ralph Trouillot, Silencing the Past:

92 ILWCH, 95, Spring 2019

Power and the production of history (Boston, 2001), as indigenous scholar Andrea Smith argues, the logic of genocide, in which “indigenous peoples must disappear. In fact, they must always be disappearing, in order to enable non-indigenous peoples’ rightful claim to land” is a way that teleologies inform white supremacy and setter colonialism. Settler colonial temporalities are world-forming processes that have shaped anthropology’s commitments (Andrea Smith, “Indigeneity, Settler Colonialism, White Supremacy,” in Racial Formation in the Twenty-First Century, Daniel Martinez Hosang, Oneka LaBennet, and Laura Pulido (eds.) (Berkley, 2012), 66–90. These ways of describing those who have been colonized, marginalized, and ren- dered unevenly susceptible to death, create dangerous ways of talking about the relationship between race and landscape.

10. The 2012 plan to rezone north Bed-Stuy was well under-way. The plan, which sought to “incentivize affordable housing creation in major corridors” and “preserve neighborhood char- acter,” was rapidly transforming Bed-Stuy, posing the question: Affordable housing for whom?

11. The Mayor’s Office uses scorecards to assess safety and status of a neighborhood’s streets. Since the 1930s, Bed-Stuy has had a reputation of being the filthiest since the black pop- ulation began to grow (for more, see: Brian Purnell, Fighting Jim Crow in the County of Kings (Lexington, KY, 2013)).

12. With the rapid evictions and evacuations that had been taking place in the neighbor- hood, many people made creative use of existing community to direct their own flows. For example, when people were kicked out of the apartments with little notice they would leave a set of keys at a barber shop so that those who were daring enough or looking for refuge on a cold night could make use of what was left. As Robin Kelley has said about the relationship between the church and the black working class, there is creative and critical power in the ability to make congregation out of segregation. Robin Kelley, “We Are Not What We Seem.” The Journal of American History, 80, 1 (1993): 75–112.

13. According to black Marxist scholars, all capitalism is racial because it is a system depen- dent on colonialism, slavery, and genocide. I use racial capitalism to think through how capitalism and racism co-produced spatial and racial “order.” See Oliver Cox, Caste, Class, & Race (New York, 1948), Cedric Robinson, Black Marxism: The Making of a Black Radical Tradition (Chapel Hill, NC, 1983), and Manning Marable, How Capitalism Underdeveloped Black America (Boston, 1999).

14. Richard Rothstein, The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America (New York, 2017).

15. W.E.B Du Bois, The Philadelphia Negro; a Social Study (Philadelphia, 1995). 16. Suleiman Osman, The Invention of Brownstone Brooklyn: Gentrification and the

Search for Authenticity in Postwar New York (New York, 2012). 17. “From Redlining to Subprime Lending: How Neighborhood Narratives Mask

Financial Distress in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn,” Housing Policy Debate 23 (2013): 714– 37, Jacob W. Faber, “Racial Dynamics of Subprime Mortgage Lending at the Peak,” Housing Policy Debate 23 (2013): 328–49, and Lester Spence, Knocking the Hustle: Against the Neoliberal Turn in Black Politics (New York, 2015).

18. Redlining made a black middle class in Bed-Stuy possible. However, the uneven strug- gle for civil rights was often fractured along class lines. In particular, the struggle for civil rights sometimes broke out into a cross-class fight about who needed to be disciplined into civility to prove that black people where human. These struggles are also located within and circum- scribed by white modernist projects that equate betterment with whiteness and humanness.

19. Sanitation districts are calculated by a projected population based on number of domi- ciles. However, white heteronormative understandings of family ignore how the institution of slavery had forced different kinds of bonds as kin. Not only was Bed-Stuy’s population density being miscalculated, it was being miscalculated on historically racialized lines that would make Bed-Stuy seem disorderly compared to other districts with the same number of homes.

20. For more on this protest, see Brian Purnell, “Brian Taxation Without Sanitation is Tyranny” in Taylor (ed). Civil Rights in New York City: From WWII to the Giuliani Era (New York, 2007), 52–76.

21. Geographer Laura Pulido argues that environmental racism is constituent of racial capitalism. (Pulido, “Environmental Racism, Racial Capitalism, and State Sanctioned Violence,” Progress in Human Geography, 41 (2017): 524–33).

22. Arjun Appadurai argues that objects move in and out of the “commodity” phase, thus revealing the socially constructed nature of the politics of value under capitalism (Appadurai, The Social Life of Things, Cambridge, 1986). Similarly, I argue, trash is a phase of an object’s

“The Ghetto is a Gold Mine” 93

“life” that it can pass in and out of. As Sal’s shop makes visible, how and when objects move in and out of “trash” are shaped by the conditions of racial capitalism.

23. There are three different municipal maps of Bed-Stuy that draw its boundaries differ- ently: Map 1. Community District 3, Map 2. The Bed-Stuy Redevelopment Plan, and Map 3. The Department of Housing and Preservation. In the case of Bed-Stuy, the shifting border is about different ways of planning for real-estate development, but for Sal, the claiming (and perhaps preservation) of black history spatializes Bed-Stuy in ways that refuses municipal distinctions, if maps are arguments about space rather than mere descriptions of “the real.” See Sparke, In the Space of Theory (Minneapolis, 2005), McKittrick, Demonic Grounds (Minneapolis, 2006), and Banivanua-Mar, Making Settler Colonial Space (New York, 2010).

24. Jonathan P. Hicks, “Mayor Announces New Assault on Graffiti Citing its Toll on City.” New York Times 17 November 1994.

25. A corollary of this argument is implicit in much pro-gentrification literature: that it is the new (white, upper middle-class) residents of a gentrifying neighborhood who can “restore” the neighborhood to its “true” value by preserving its history—that these new residents are the proper stewards of value. Again, the assumption is that black people don’t—can’t—care for property and in their lack of care cause property to decay.

26. Manning Marable, How Capitalism Underdeveloped Black America, Chakravartty and da Silva, “Accumulation, Dispossession, and Debt: The Racial Logic of Global Capitalism—An Introduction,” American Quarterly 64, (2012): 361–85.

27. bell hooks, “Eating the Other: Desire and Resistance,” Black Looks: Race and Representation (Boston, 1992).

28. Johannes Fabian, Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes Its Object (New York, 2002).

29. Steven Gregory, Black Corona Race and the Politics of Place in an Urban Community (Princeton, NJ, 1998).

30. R.H. Melton, “N.Y. Mayor’s Trash Talk Riles VA,” Washington Post, January 15, 1999. 31. As Ruth Wilson Gilmore argues regarding California’s prison boom, land lying fallow

drives down the price of real estate. Ruth Wilson Gilmore, Golden Gulag: Prisons, Surplus, Crisis, and Opposition in Globalizing California (Berkley, 2007).

32. Jacqueline N. Brown, Dropping Anchor, Setting Sail: Geographies of Race in Black Liverpool (Princeton, NJ, 2005), 3–15.

33. As Kelley Hernandez argues, the white settler colonial history that shaped Los Angeles’s infrastructure was upheld through targeting poor whites to clean on chain gangs, “aggressively promot[ing] an idyllic settlement of middle-class white families” (412). The main- tenance of class ensured that whiteness was equated with middle-classness and blackness with poverty. (Kelley Hernandez, “Hobos in Heaven: Race, Incarceration, and the Rise of Los Angeles, 1880-1910,” Pacific Historical Review 83, 3 (2014): 410–77.)

34. Nancy Isenberg, White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America (New York, 2016), 136–53.

35. Dorothy Roberts, Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty (New York, 1997).

36. Robert’s work shows how miscegenation laws maintained white supremacy through the regulations of black women’s bodies (Dorothy Roberts, Killing the Black Body).

37. Sect. 42-16. Norfolk Municipal Code of Ordinances: Begging Code 1958, 31-10; Ord. No. 40,594, 1, 1-29-02

38. Steven Gregory, Black Corona. 39. For example, codes now known as “The Poor Laws” criminalized behaviors associated

with poverty, such as sleeping on the sidewalk or in public parks, buskering, and scavenging. Criminalizing behaviors associated with poverty is a way of reproducing spatialized class distinc- tions. See Friedrich Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England (Oxford, 2009), Edwin Chadwick, “Poor Law Administration, its Chief Principles and their Results in England and Ireland as Compared with Scotland,” Journal of the Statistical Society of London 27 (1864): 492–504, Martin Melosi, “Equity, Eco-racism, and Environmental History,” Environmental History Review 3 (1995): 1–16, and Martin Melosi, Garbage in the Cities: Refuse, Reform, and the Environment (Pittsburgh, 2005).

40. Retrieved from Norfolk DID online: https://www.downtownnorfolk.org (accessed on September 26, 2016).

94 ILWCH, 95, Spring 2019

Copyright © International Labor and Working-Class History, Inc. 2019